Archive by Author

Supreme Court Set Argument

It’s official, Christopher v. Smithkline Beechum will be heard on April 16, 2012.  It is the only matter on the calendar for the day and the argument will last one hour.  On Monday all of the amicus for the petitioners will file their briefs.  Four briefs will be filed in support of the reps including the United States of America that will join in supporting the reps.  To see the amicus briefs go to the scotusblog page for the Christopher case. It may take a few days until they are uploaded to the site.

Opening Brief Filed in Supreme Court on Christopher

The opening brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham.  Kingsley & Kingsley appears as one of four counsel on the brief.  Counsel of Record Thomas Goldstein took the lead in editing and finalizing the brief and will be arguing the case in front of the court in April.  That will be his 27th argument before the high court.  Respondent’s brief is due March 19th.

Warner Chilcot Sued for Unpaid Overtime

Today, Warner Chilcot was sued by Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum and Kingsley & Kingsley for unpaid overtime in the state of New York.  In light of the Novartis settlement for $99m we expect to see a flurry of filing in the next few weeks.  If you need legal assistance and you are a pharmaceutical representative please call 212-688-5640 or 888-500-8469.  The complaint can be viewed here.  Also a press release in Sacramento Bee is here.

News Reports on Novartis Settlement

Wall Street Journal on Novartis
Associated Press on Novartis
Washington Post
FOX Business

Novartis Settles claims for $99m

Last night it was reported that Novartis has settled its claims against the reps for a reported $99,000,000.00.  My understanding is this will include all reps who opted in to the case previously and reps who worked in New York and California.  This would represent the first major settlement of a pharmaceutical overtime case.  It should be noted that their claim was settled prior to the Supreme Court weighing in on the issue.  While the claims could be worth more, the lawyers for the reps had to take into consideration the risk of loss at the Supreme Court level.  We believe the risk is relatively low, despite conventional wisdom of a pro-corporate court, becuase the court over the years has upheld agency action and given deference to it.  We expect the same will occur here.  Should the reps win in the Supreme Court, I would expect to see $250m or even larger numbers begin to emerge from some of the other companies.  It is also conceivable that we will see settlements in the next few months in advance of the opinion as Big Pharma gets nervous and decides to get some closure and change their practices.

The Deference Trend in the Supreme Court

Scotusblog had an interesting article about the deference jurisprudence in the United States Supreme Court.  Ms. Frost seemed to indicated that Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham was the case for the court to reconsider Auer.  Scalia seemed to suggest as much in Talk America last term.  This is a bit inside baseball, but the primary concern of the deference analysis is whether Scalia can convince any of his colleagues to abandon Auer.  There is no evidence to suspect that they will but Ms. Frost indicates that this case would be the perfect vehicle to accomplish this change.  We hope they decline Ms. Frost’s invitation. The post can be read in full here.