Eli Lilly and Company (LLY)

 

Two lawsuits that seek class action status were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against us and various current and former directors, officers and employees (Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed March 28, 2007, and Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed April 5, 2007). The suits have been consolidated under the caption In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities Litigation. In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, seeking certification of a putative class of purchasers of our stock from August 1, 2002, through December 22, 2006. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. In October 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. That motion has been converted in part to a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled in March 2008. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

In April 2007, the company received demands from two 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 with respect to the allegedly improper marketing of Evista, Prozac, and Zyprexa. We received a similar demand in September related only to 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. In January 2008, two of the three shareholders who had submitted the demands filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, nominally on behalf of the company, against various current and former directors and officers (Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed January 17, 2008). The suit alleges that the board of directors constructively denied the shareholders’ prior demands by failing to take action on the demands sufficiently promptly. We believe this suit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

 

Two lawsuits that seek class action status were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against us and various current and former directors,
officers and employees (Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and
Company et al., filed March 28, 2007, and
Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed
April 5, 2007). The suits have been consolidated under the
caption In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities
Litigation. In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, seeking certification of a
putative class of purchasers of our stock from August 1,
2002, through December 22, 2006. The complaint alleges that
the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
Zyprexa in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys’ fees. In October 2007, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
That motion has been converted in part to a motion for summary
judgment, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled in March
2008. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared
to defend against them vigorously.

 

In April 2007, the company received demands from two
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 with respect
to the allegedly improper marketing of Evista, Prozac, and
Zyprexa. We received a similar demand in September related only
to 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. In January
2008, two of the three shareholders who had submitted the
demands filed a derivative suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, nominally on behalf
of the company, against various current and former directors and
officers (Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed
January 17, 2008). The suit alleges that the board of
directors constructively denied the shareholders’ prior
demands by failing to take action on the demands sufficiently
promptly. We believe this suit is without merit and are prepared
to defend against it vigorously.

 

 

Two lawsuits that seek class action status were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against us and various current and former directors, officers and employees (Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed March 28, 2007, and Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed April 5, 2007). The suits have been consolidated under the caption In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities Litigation. In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, seeking certification of a putative class of purchasers of our stock from August 1, 2002, through December 22, 2006. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. In October 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. That motion has been converted in part to a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled in March 2008. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

In April 2007, the company received demands from two 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 with respect to the allegedly improper marketing of Evista, Prozac, and Zyprexa. We received a similar demand in September related only to 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. In January 2008, two of the three shareholders who had submitted the demands filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, nominally on behalf of the company, against various current and former directors and officers (Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed January 17, 2008). The suit alleges that the board of directors constructively denied the shareholders’ prior demands by failing to take action on the demands sufficiently promptly. We believe this suit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

 

Two lawsuits that seek class action status were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against us and various current and former directors,
officers and employees (Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and
Company et al., filed March 28, 2007, and
Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., filed
April 5, 2007). The suits have been consolidated under the
caption In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities
Litigation. In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, seeking certification of a
putative class of purchasers of our stock from August 1,
2002, through December 22, 2006. The complaint alleges that
the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
Zyprexa in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys’ fees. In October 2007, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
That motion has been converted in part to a motion for summary
judgment, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled in March
2008. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared
to defend against them vigorously.

 

In April 2007, the company received demands from two
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 with respect
to the allegedly improper marketing of Evista, Prozac, and
Zyprexa. We received a similar demand in September related only
to 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. In January
2008, two of the three shareholders who had submitted the
demands filed a derivative suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, nominally on behalf
of the company, against various current and former directors and
officers (Lambrecht, et al. v. Taurel, et al., filed
January 17, 2008). The suit alleges that the board of
directors constructively denied the shareholders’ prior
demands by failing to take action on the demands sufficiently
promptly. We believe this suit is without merit and are prepared
to defend against it vigorously.