|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
| |||||||||
This excerpt taken from the LLY 10-K filed Feb 22, 2010. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation
In 2007, the company received two demands from shareholders that
the board of directors cause the company to take legal action
against current and former directors and others for allegedly
causing damage to the company through improper marketing of
Evista, Prozac, and Zyprexa. In accordance with procedures
established under the Indiana Business Corporation Law (Ind.
Code
§ 23-1-32),
the board has appointed a committee of independent persons to
consider the demands and determine what action, if any, the
company should take in response. Since January 2008, we have
been served with seven shareholder derivative lawsuits:
Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed
January 17, 2008, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana; Staehr, et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company, et al., filed March 27, 2008, in
Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana;
Waldman, et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,
filed February 11, 2008, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York; Solomon v.
Eli Lilly and Company, et al., filed March 27, 2008, in
Marion County Superior Court in
15
Indianapolis, Indiana; Robbins v. Taurel, et al.,
filed April 9, 2008, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York; City of Taylor General
Employees Retirement System v. Taurel, et al., filed
April 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York; and Zemprelli v. Taurel,
et al., filed June 24, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Two of
these lawsuits were filed by the shareholders who served the
demands described above. All seven lawsuits are nominally filed
on behalf of the company, against various current and former
directors and officers and allege that the named officers and
directors harmed the company through the improper marketing of
Zyprexa, and in certain suits, Evista and Prozac. The Zemprelli
suit also claims that certain defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously.
These excerpts taken from the LLY 10-K filed Feb 27, 2009. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation
In 2007, the company received two demands from shareholders that
the board of directors cause the company to take legal action
against current and former directors and others for allegedly
causing damage to the company through improper marketing of
Evista, Prozac, and Zyprexa. In accordance with procedures
established under the Indiana Business Corporation Law (Ind.
Code
§ 23-1-32),
the board has appointed a committee of independent persons to
consider the demands and determine what action, if any, the
company should take in response. Since January 2008, we have
been served with seven shareholder derivative lawsuits:
Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed
January 17, 2008, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana; Staehr et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company et al., filed March 27, 2008, in
Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana;
Waldman et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,
filed February 11, 2008, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York; Solomon v.
Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed March 27, 2008, in
Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana;
Robbins v. Taurel, et al., filed April 9, 2008,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York; City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Taurel, et al., filed April 15, 2008, in
the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and
Zemprelli v. Taurel, et al., filed June 24,
2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana. Two of these lawsuits were filed by the
shareholders who served the demands described above. All seven
lawsuits are nominally filed on behalf of the company, against
various current and former directors and officers and allege
that the named officers and directors harmed the company through
the improper marketing of Zyprexa, and in certain suits, Evista
and Prozac. The Zemprelli suit also claims that certain
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We believe these lawsuits are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.
Shareholder Derivative Litigation In 2007, the company received two demands from shareholders that the board of directors cause the company to take legal action against current and former directors and others for allegedly causing damage to the company through improper marketing of Evista, Prozac, and Zyprexa. In accordance with procedures established under the Indiana Business Corporation Law (Ind. Code § 23-1-32), the board has appointed a committee of independent persons to consider the demands and determine what action, if any, the company should take in response. Since January 2008, we have been served with seven shareholder derivative lawsuits: Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed January 17, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana; Staehr et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed March 27, 2008, in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana; Waldman et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed February 11, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Solomon v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed March 27, 2008, in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana; Robbins v. Taurel, et al., filed April 9, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Taurel, et al., filed April 15, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and Zemprelli v. Taurel, et al., filed June 24, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Two of these lawsuits were filed by the shareholders who served the demands described above. All seven lawsuits are nominally filed on behalf of the company, against various current and former directors and officers and allege that the named officers and directors harmed the company through the improper marketing of Zyprexa, and in certain suits, Evista and Prozac. The Zemprelli suit also claims that certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously. | EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
RELATED TOPICS for LLY: |
| |||||||
