Johnson & Johnson - Index

Johnson & Johnson - report - Index

the Attorney General of the State of Alabama making allegations
related to AWP is expected to proceed during 2008. Additional
AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General are expected
to be set for trial in 2008.
OTHER
In July 2003, Centocor Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary
received a request that it voluntarily provide documents and
information to the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office,
District of New Jersey, in connection with its investigation into
various Centocor marketing practices. Subsequent requests
for documents have been received from the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. Both the Company and Centocor responded, or are in
the process of responding, to these requests for documents
and information.
In December 2003, Ortho-McNeil received a subpoena
from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, Massachusetts seeking
documents relating to the marketing, including alleged off-label
marketing, of the drug TOPAMAX® (topiramate). Additional
subpoenas for documents have been received. Ortho-McNeil is
cooperating in responding to the subpoenas. In October 2004,
the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston asked attorneys for Ortho-
McNeil to cooperate in facilitating the subpoenaed testimony of
several present and former Ortho-McNeil employees before a
federal grand jury in Boston. Cooperation in securing the testimony
of additional witnesses before the grand jury has been
requested and is being provided.
In January 2004, Janssen received a subpoena from the
Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management seeking documents concerning sales and marketing
of, any and all payments to physicians in connection with
sales and marketing of, and clinical trials for, RISPERDAL®
(risperidone) from 1997 to 2002. Documents subsequent to
2002 have also been requested. An additional subpoena seeking
information about marketing of and adverse reactions to
RISPERDAL® was received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in November 2005. Subpoenas
seeking testimony from various witnesses before a grand jury
have also been received. Janssen is cooperating in responding to
these subpoenas.
In August 2004, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems,
Inc. (HCS), a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, received a subpoena
from the Dallas, Texas U.S. Attorney’s Office seeking documents
relating to the relationships between the group purchasing
organization, Novation, and HCS and other Johnson & Johnson
subsidiaries. The Company’s subsidiaries involved have
responded to the subpoena.
In September 2004, Ortho Biotech Inc. (Ortho Biotech),
received a subpoena from the U.S. Office of Inspector General’s
Denver, Colorado field office seeking documents directed to
sales and marketing of PROCRIT® (Epoetin alfa) from 1997 to
the present, as well as to dealings with U.S. Oncology Inc., a
healthcare services network for oncologists. Ortho Biotech has
responded to the subpoena.
In September 2004, plaintiffs in an employment discrimination
litigation initiated against the Company in 2001 in Federal
District Court in New Jersey moved to certify a class of all
African American and Hispanic salaried employees of the Company
and its affiliates in the U.S., who were employed at any time
from November 1997 to the present. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages for the period 1997 through the present (including
punitive damages) and equitable relief. The Court denied plaintiffs’
class certification motion in December 2006 and their
motion for reconsideration in April 2007. Plaintiffs are seeking to
appeal these decisions.
In March 2005, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy), a
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, received a subpoena from the
U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey, seeking records
concerning contractual relationships between DePuy and surgeons
or surgeons-in-training involved in hip and knee replacement
and reconstructive surgery. This investigation was resolved
by DePuy and the four other leading suppliers of hip and knee
implants in late September 2007 by agreements with the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey. The settlements
include an 18-month Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA),
acceptance by each company of a monitor to assure compliance
with the DPA and, with respect to four of the five companies,
payment of settlement monies and entry into five year Corporate
Integrity Agreements. DePuy paid $85 million as its settlement.
In November 2007, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts issued a civil investigative demand to DePuy
seeking information regarding financial relationships between a
number of Massachusetts-based orthopedic surgeons and
providers and DePuy, which relationships had been publicly disclosed
by DePuy pursuant to the DPA. In February 2008, DePuy
received a written request for information from the United States
Senate Special Committee on Aging, as a follow-up to earlier
inquiries, concerning a number of aspects of the DPA. Depuy is
responding to both requests.
In June 2005, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
requested the Company to produce information regarding use
by several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries of educational
grants. A similar request was sent to other major pharmaceutical
companies. In July 2005, the Committee specifically requested
information about educational grants in connection with the
drug PROPULSID®. A follow up request was received from the
Committee for additional information in January 2006. On
October 30, 2007 another letter was received from the U.S.
Senate Committee on Finance requesting information concerning
payments to a list of physicians, and specification as to
whether any such payments were for continuing medical
education, honoraria, research support, etc.
In July 2005, Scios Inc. (Scios), a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary,
received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office,
District of Massachusetts, seeking documents related to the
sales and marketing of NATRECOR®. Scios is responding to the
subpoena. In early August 2005, Scios was advised that the
investigation would be handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
In September 2005, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena
from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts,
seeking documents related to sales and marketing of eight drugs
to Omnicare, Inc., a manager of pharmaceutical benefits for longterm
care facilities. The Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries involved
are responding to the subpoena. Several employees of the Company’s
pharmaceutical subsidiaries have been subpoenaed to
testify before a grand jury in connection with this investigation.
In November 2005, Amgen filed suit against Hoffmann-
LaRoche, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts seeking a declaration that the Roche product
CERA, which Roche has indicated it will seek to introduce into
70 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2007 ANNUAL REPORT