Category Archives: Vytorin James Stein MD ENHANCE RICO Pattern Activities

New Civil RICO suit — Alleging Stein e-mail Comments help prove Racketeering "Enterprise-Wide Pattern Activity". . . .

A new lawsuit has been docketed tonight, April 18, 2008, against Schering and Merck, alleging RICO pattern-activity violations, various state Consumer Anti-Fraud violations, Unjust Enrichment and common-law fraud. The most newsworthy innovation of this “Johnny-come-lately” suit, though, is that it picks up, almost word-for-word, much of what has been written surrounding Dr. James Stein’s e-mailed comments — especially those highlighting the inaccuracies in the after-the-fact “Draft Minutes” of that now-pivotal November 16, 2007 ENHANCE science panel meeting.

The above suit then adds these new allegations to the factual allegations already made in other suits — with the objective being to plead, and prove, civil RICO “enterprise-wide racketeering pattern” activities. This new federal suit is captioned “Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Heatlh and Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, and Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, et al.” (Case No. 2:08-cv-01894, Complaint filed April 17, 2008, US Dist. Ct. NJ).

I’ll likely have more to say about it — after I digest the rest of it — in passing, I would note that the plaintiff has also used various of the April 2008 letters and statements by Sen. Grassley in its original complaint. Clever!

As ever, more to come.

Advertisements

New Civil RICO suit — Alleging Stein e-mail Comments help prove Racketeering "Enterprise-Wide Pattern Activity". . . .

A new lawsuit has been docketed tonight, April 18, 2008, against Schering and Merck, alleging RICO pattern-activity violations, various state Consumer Anti-Fraud violations, Unjust Enrichment and common-law fraud. The most newsworthy innovation of this “Johnny-come-lately” suit, though, is that it picks up, almost word-for-word, much of what has been written surrounding Dr. James Stein’s e-mailed comments — especially those highlighting the inaccuracies in the after-the-fact “Draft Minutes” of that now-pivotal November 16, 2007 ENHANCE science panel meeting.

The above suit then adds these new allegations to the factual allegations already made in other suits — with the objective being to plead, and prove, civil RICO “enterprise-wide racketeering pattern” activities. This new federal suit is captioned “Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Heatlh and Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, and Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, et al.” (Case No. 2:08-cv-01894, Complaint filed April 17, 2008, US Dist. Ct. NJ).

I’ll likely have more to say about it — after I digest the rest of it — in passing, I would note that the plaintiff has also used various of the April 2008 letters and statements by Sen. Grassley in its original complaint. Clever!

As ever, more to come.

New Civil RICO suit — Alleging Stein e-mail Comments help prove Racketeering "Enterprise-Wide Pattern Activity". . . .

A new lawsuit has been docketed tonight, April 18, 2008, against Schering and Merck, alleging RICO pattern-activity violations, various state Consumer Anti-Fraud violations, Unjust Enrichment and common-law fraud. The most newsworthy innovation of this “Johnny-come-lately” suit, though, is that it picks up, almost word-for-word, much of what has been written surrounding Dr. James Stein’s e-mailed comments — especially those highlighting the inaccuracies in the after-the-fact “Draft Minutes” of that now-pivotal November 16, 2007 ENHANCE science panel meeting.

The above suit then adds these new allegations to the factual allegations already made in other suits — with the objective being to plead, and prove, civil RICO “enterprise-wide racketeering pattern” activities. This new federal suit is captioned “Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Heatlh and Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, and Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, et al.” (Case No. 2:08-cv-01894, Complaint filed April 17, 2008, US Dist. Ct. NJ).

I’ll likely have more to say about it — after I digest the rest of it — in passing, I would note that the plaintiff has also used various of the April 2008 letters and statements by Sen. Grassley in its original complaint. Clever!

As ever, more to come.