22 Dic Xarelto Settlement Agreement
To be able to participate in the billing program, each applicant must be/his registration form and return to our office a duly signed and notarized authorization. After a five-year Xarelto trial, Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals reached an agreement in March 2019. The $775 million in compensation will be split between the two companies, so each company will pay approximately $387.5 million. This transaction resolved the more than 25,000 ongoing Xarelto complaints against the two pharmaceutical companies. The current dispute stems from private regulation in the MDL case, in which the drug drug Xarelto is being treated. To put this case into perspective, it is useful to conduct a brief review of the dispute. As of 2014, federal lawsuits have been filed against the defendants, Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer AG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Janssen Orthos LLC and Johnson-Johnson. In their appeals, the applicants expressly argue that they or their family members suffered severe bleeding and other injuries as a result of Xarelto`s allegedly inadequate warning and other theories. A total of six trials of Xarelto were tried. As Bayer noted in its opinion on the 2019 agreement, the six studies were decided in favour of drug manufacturers. As a result of these legal victories, the number of complaints has slowed since 2017-18. The March 2019 transaction also terminated the majority of spent Xarelto complaints.
In accordance with the agreement announced today between counsel and Bayer Healthcare (OTC: BAYRY) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), this is a private agreement to settle the entire dispute, including cases before federal and regional courts. The CSP then objected to Movants` first motion because it requested that the Tribunal «forcefully impose and certify a class comparison to the litigants,» for which the Court is not entitled to do so, since it is a multi-party dispute and not a class action within the meaning of the federal regulation of civil proceedings.23 Dr. Doc. 17502 to 5. In addition, the CSP argues that Movants does not have the power to ask the Court of Justice to repeal or amend the proposed transaction contract, either because they did not opt for the program and are not bound by the terms of the transaction agreement. Dr. Doc. 17502 to 5. The PSC indicates that movants, if they do not agree with the transaction contract, are not affected or bound by its provisions and may use and bring to justice the test package made available by the CSP. Dr. Doc. 17502 to 7.
In addition, the CSP challenges Movants` assertion that the provisions of the transaction agreement are unethical and points out that the provisions were agreed only after consultation with a separate ethics advisor and that all lawyers whose clients choose the comparison can use the «safe harbor» language contained in the transaction contract. Dr. Doc. 17502 to 9. Finally, the CSP does not see the need to appoint a second CSP, given that only a small number of companies refuse to opt for the resolution process and all general investigations are already completed, so only one discovery may be necessary. Dr. Doc. 17502 to 10. The defendants Bayer Corp. et al.
also objected to Movants` objections and requested discharge for several reasons. Dr. Doc. 17499-1. First, the defendants point out that the Court has no jurisdiction to overturn a private transaction agreement between the consenting parties and that this MDL does not include a group action that would authorize the Court to create a reference class.