Actos Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Bladder Cancer Risk

A class action lawsuit (actos lawsuit) has been filed against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly on behalf of all users of the diabetes drug Actos, seeking financial compensation and medical monitoring as a result of the drug makers’ failure to adequately warn about the risk of bladder cancer from Actos.

The Actos class action lawsuit was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of two users of the drug who developed bladder cancer, and one of their spouses. However, the complaint seeks class certification to include coverage for the millions of individuals who used Actos in the United States since it was introduced in 1999.

Actos (pioglitazone)

Actos (pioglitazone) is a prescription medication approved by the FDA for treatment of Type II diabetes. The drug increases the body’s sensitivity to insulin, and has increased in popularity in recent years, generating an estimated $4.3 billion in sales last year and becoming one of the ten best selling drugs in the United States.

FDA issued warnings

Recently, concerns have surfaced about a potential increased risk of bladder cancer from Actos. In June 2011, the FDA issued warnings indicating that use of Actos for more than one year has been associated with a bladder cancer risk. As a result of the high incidence of cancer identified, French drug regulators forced an Actos recall to be issued in that country, and many have suggested that Actos should be removed from the market in the United States as well.

In recent months, dozens of individuals throughout the United States have filed an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit, alleging that Takeda pharmaceuticals failed to adequately research their medication or warn about the potential risks associated with use.

Lawsuit over Actos filed on September 16

According to allegations raised in the class action lawsuit over Actos filed on September 16, Takeda had a significant financial incentive to suppress, misrepresent and conceal the potential dangers assocaited with Actos to maximize their profits at the expense of the health of patients taking the drug. As a result of the drug maker’s failure to appropriately disclose material information about the known risk of cancer from Actos, the complaint alleges that users did not have adequate information about the risks of using Actos and were therefore unable to avoid exposing themselves to a risk of injury.

“Clearly, the relationship between Actos and bladder cancer has been known, or should have been known, to Defendants,” the class action Actos complaint alleges. “Despite their knowledge, Defendants refused to inform patients, doctors or the medical community about the risks and put their profits before people.”

Plaintiffs indicate that they are bringing the Actos class action to recover money damages, medical monitoring and other relief for all individuals who ingested Actos in the United States or it’s territories since it was introduced in July 1999. Actos was taken by millions of people each week, resulting in a class that could include a millions if the complaint is certified.

U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is expected to decide later this year whether the federal Actos litigation, which currently consists of more than 50 individual lawsuits and this one class action, should be centralized before one judge for pretrial proceedings. If the cases are consolidated, the cases would be managed in a manner similar to how an Actos class action suit would be handled during discovery and pretrial litigation. However, if an Actos settlement or other resolution is not reached, each case would be handled individually for trial.

Article: Actos Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Bladder Cancer Risk
Article Source: BeElected.com
Author: Brown Eyesman

Actos Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Bladder Cancer Risk

Tags; Actos Lawsuit; Actos Cancer; Bladder Cancer; Takeda Pharmaceuticals

Resources; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Actos Lawsuit;Actos Cancer; Bladder Cancer

Yulia Tymoshenko, who more than once during her trial accused the judge of acting on behalf of her rival, President Victor Yanukovich, was convicted of exceeding her powers by signing a gas deal with Russia in January 2009 that the judge said had cost the government gas company about $200 million in damages.

“Taking into account … the high social danger of the crime that Tymoshenko committed, her personality and the lack of any kind of remorse the court doesn’t find any ground for a imposing a softer punishment,” said Judge Rodion Kireyev, who also ruled that the 51-year-old former prime minister should compensate Naftagas Ukraine, the state-owned gas company, for the full cost of its losses.

Tymoshenko will not be able to hold any government position for three years after her release, the judge ruled.

Tymoshenko, who defiantly sat with her husband and daughter at her side through most of the day, stood near the end of the reading of the verdict and interrupted the judge, shouting that she didn’t agree with the verdict and calling on Ukrainians to unite against what she labeled repressions reminiscent of the Stalinist era.

“I declare that [1937] has returned and I call upon all the people to protect Ukraine against totalitarianism,” Tymoshenko said in her courtroom remarks televised by Russia-24 television network. “Don’t lose spirit and we will overcome the authoritarian regime together.”

The charismatic Tymoshenko, popularly called the princess of the 2004 Orange Revolution, came under fire from law enforcement agencies shortly after she lost the 2010 presidential election to Yanukovich by 3 percentage points.

Her opponents hailed the verdict and predicted more trials for Tymoshenko ahead. The former prime minister may face high treason charges, said Inna Bogoslovskaya, a lawmaker from Yanukovich’s Party of the Regions.

“It would be proper to call her a gas princess who was acting in the interests of Russia when she signed the infamous deal which set up Ukraine for 10 years with ludicrously unfair gas prices,” said Bogoslovskaya, who also heads the Supreme Rada, the national parliament’s commission to investigate the signing of the 2009 deal, in a telephone interview. “Based on numerous documents, we have established that, at the time of signing the gas deal, companies controlled by Tymoshenko and her family owed more than $400 million to the Russian Defense Ministry for earlier deals and she was acting under foreign influence.”

Bogoslovskaya maintained that the verdict sets a necessary precedent by “breaking the vicious circle which left crimes committed by high-rank state official unpunished.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry lashed out at the verdict, stressing its “obvious anti-Russian implication.”

The court “ignored the convincing evidence that the said gas agreements were concluded in strict accordance with the legislation of Russia and Ukraine and the norms of international law,” said its statement, published on the ministry website.

Tymoshenko was led out of the courtroom and taken away in a gray prison van. Several hundred supporters in the streets tried to break through the police cordons. In the footage shown by Russia-24, protesters were throwing flowers under the wheels of the van chanting: “Yulia,Yulia!”

The opposition plans to intensify protests in an attempt to bring down the current parliament and force a new election, said Natalia Korolevskaya, a lawmaker from Tymoshenko’s Byut Party.

“We need to mobilize a maximum number of people and unite all the opposition forces in their struggle against the unfair verdict,” Korolevskaya said in a phone interview. “The verdict of Tymoshenko is a verdict of the entire country, further curbing the people’s constitutional rights and freedoms.”

Article: Ukraine ex-prime minister convicted of abuse of power
Article Source: LA Times
Author: Sergei L. Loiko

Ukraine ex-prime minister convicted of abuse of power

Areas, effects in BP oil class action

On April 20, 2010, The Gulf of Mexico oil spill occurred. And, this seriously affected all the Gulf Coast states, their economy and also their environment. The effects have been unexpected and are reported to have both short-term as well as long-term consequences. The areas, which go under the BP oil class action, are Texas, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. The residents of these areas have been badly hit as their livelihood’s depended totally up on the Gulf Coast waters. Many of these people have already filed their individual and BP oil class action lawsuits against the petroleum company. The petroleum company had caused a lot of problems for these people and was forced to pay all the damages, which resulted from the BP oil class action lawsuit claims filed against it. Although BP is among the largest and one of the most profitable petroleum oil companies across the globe, it reputation is at stake for these oil spills. Due to the BP oil class action, its reputation has considerably suffered and questions on their operational efficiency are being raised. There are numerous BP oil class action lawsuits and BP class action litigations filed, which is impossible for this petroleum company to ignore. Moreover, there is another fact that the number of victims of the BP oil spill who are hoping to reach a BP oil class settlement are growing in number every day.

BP class action lawsuit compensation

The BP oil class action lawsuit was filed in Louisiana in its Eastern District right after the report submitted by the US Coast Guard. The US Coast Guard reported that there was some approximate oil amount had been released into the waters of the Gulf Coast. The BP oil class action lawsuit asserts that the party who is responsible for the act. In other words, these people were called as defendants and were aware that there was possible danger that was related to the oil rig and its drilling operations in the Deepwater Horizon. However, they failed to undertake those adequate steps, which should be taken in order to prevent the disasters and the damages related to it. So, if you or any acquaintance has been injured or your property has been damaged due to the oil spill, than you are entitled to get compensation by filing a BP class action lawsuit.

People who had filed for BP class action

Daniel Becnel had filed the first BP class action lawsuit on behalf of some shrimpers, commercial boaters and fishermen of Louisiana. The business of these people had totally collapsed as the result of the BP oil spill. The BP class action lawsuit filed by Becnel, is of $15 billion claim from British Petroleum. It is also reported that above 1 million people are expected in joining this litigation and were victims of this Louisiana BP oil class action spill. Furthermore, it is also assumed that not only these boaters, fishermen and shrimpers in Louisiana, but the property owners from all other parts, which had been affected in the Gulf Coast states. They also have the option to choose and pursue legal action against the BP.

BP oil class action

Justice Department officials said Joseph Harvey, 51, and Anja Kannell, 41, of Delray Beach, Florida, appeared in federal court in Miami on Thursday to face indictments for mail fraud, wire fraud and aggressive identity theft. Prosecutors said the defendants claimed the money from a $20 billion fund set up to help legitimate victims of the spill recover lost income.

Justice officials said they have brought charges in at least 30 cases in which individuals tried to recover funds to which they were not entitled. This was the biggest case yet, according to the Justice Department.

Harvey and Kannell are accused of filing phony claims using 34 assumed identities of actual Florida residents.

These claims were complete with names and Social Security numbers, though they had fictitious addresses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle. Officials say the defendants instructed that all the funds be sent to an account they controlled in Texas.

A magistrate judge on Thursday ordered Harvey and Kannell to remain in custody, pending further court proceedings next week.

The charges carry 10-, 15- and 20-year prison sentences upon conviction.

Article: Florida pair indicted in largest alleged BP claim scam
Article Source: CNN
Author: Terry Frieden

Florida pair indicted in largest alleged BP claim scam

The bill, while similar to one moving through the Senate, would allow more freedom to five Gulf Coast states affected by last year’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill to spend millions of dollars in BP fines headed their way, said Rep. Jeff Miller.

“It would give local governments more say in how and where the money is spent,” said Miller, the Republican from Chumuckla who represents Florida’s 1st Congressional District. “We believe that way the money will be spent more efficiently on more appropriate projects.”

Specifically, Miller said the House bill, unveiled at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday, is designed to limit the power of the federal government to dictate how the BP dollars are spent.

“It has provisions that provide more flexibility to spend the money on economic development instead of restricting it to environmental projects,” Miller said. “The biggest objection (to the Senate bill) for the House sponsors is that there’s not enough to be done to help the economy.”

The RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act bills in both chambers call for 80 percent of BP’s fines collected under the Clean Water Act to be dedicated to the restoration of the Gulf Coast ecosystem and the economies of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

Rep. Steve Southerland, who represents Florida’s 2nd District, said the House’s version of the RESTORE Act could help soften the “historic environmental and economic” blow to the Gulf region.

“It is my hope that we can help accelerate the recovery of our coastal communities by directing Clean Water Act funds directly to the areas most critically impacted by the accident,” said Southerland, R-Panama City.

Southerland said the bill will not only address the environmental impact to the region, but also the economic impact to the counties along the Gulf directly impacted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in April 2010.

“Some of the funds will go to find out what impact the spill had on our fisheries,” he said.

35 percent

Under provisions of the House bill, 35 percent of the funds would be divided among the five Gulf states.

The bill also would make 30 percent of the money received available for “development and implementation of a comprehensive restoration plan,” according to a news release issued Wednesday.

The bill envisions the plan to be formulated and money allocated by a council composed of federal and state officials.

It calls for another 30 percent of funds to be allocated through an “impact driven formula” and disbursed “according to plans submitted by the Gulf Coast states and approved by the council.”

The final 5 percent of the funds would go toward establishing an endowment and centers of excellence to advance science and technology in the Gulf region.

Miller said last week that he wasn’t sure the Senate bill, which has passed out of one committee, would get anywhere in a chamber clogged by partisan politics. He repeated that opinion Wednesday.

“I don’t know if they could pass a resolution on Mother’s Day right now,” he said.

Miller said the House version “has a better chance of passing the House than the Senate bill would” because of the economic provisions included.

Under legislation sponsored by state Sen. Don Gaetz, 75 percent of whatever of BP’s fines that make it to Florida will go Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, Gulf, Wakulla and Franklin counties.

It will be divided among the counties using a formula established by a recently formed regional coalition.

Article: Northwest Florida’s Area congressmen sign on to RESTORE Act
Article Source: News Herald
Author: TOM McLAUGHLIN

Northwest Florida’s Area congressmen sign on to RESTORE Act

BP has won another round in its ongoing feud with a shareholder of a Russian subsidiary as a Siberian court overturned a ruling related to searches of the company’s office in Moscow earlier this year.

The Arbitration Court in the city of Omsk found in favour of the UK supermajor in its appeal against a July ruling in a separate Russian court which allowed bailiffs to descend on the offices of BP Exploration Operating Company (BP EOC) on 31 August.

Monday’s ruling by the Omsk court overturns the 19 July ruling in Tyumen in favour of a minority shareholder in TNK-BP, the oil giant’s joint venture in Russia, even though that search order had itself been effectively quashed by the Tyumen court in mid September.

BP EOC wrote in a statement on Monday that it “believes that there was no merit to the [19 July] order of Judge Loskutov” as, amongst other reasons, “the claim to secure evidence from BP EOC should not have been reviewed by the Arbitration Court of Tyumen region since it falls under another court’s jurisdiction, namely the Moscow Arbitration Court”.

Bailiffs descended on the offices of BP EOC on 31 August, turfing staff out and occupying the building for two whole days. Although they did not take any documents away with them they sealed documents for later examination.

The raid was directly related to a case brought against BP in Tyumen by a minority shareholder of its joint venture in the country, TNK-BP, who was aggrieved by the collapse of BP’s $16 billion deal with Rosneft in May.

Monday’s ruling in favour of BP is another blow to TNK-BP minority shareholder Andrei Prokhorov who is looking to sue the supermajor for $4.9 billion over alleged losses suffered by the joint venture in the wake of the failed deal with Rosneft.

BP has consistently denied Prokhorov’s claims, saying “there were in fact no damages in the form of lost profits” for TNK-BP as the latter “was not considered as a possible member of the strategic partnership with Rosneft and could not become a partner ‘due to the lack of required competence’, as has frequently been stated by Rosneft.”

BP lashed the 19 July ruling further on Monday by claiming: “The judge accepted a claim from a person who was not entitled to request the securing of evidence prior to a lawsuit since A Prokhorov did not furnish proof that he or other claimants owned at least 1% of TNK-BP Holding shares, which is a prerequisite to file any lawsuit against members of the board of directors.”

The statement argued further: “The ruling was upheld despite the lack of proof of any need to secure the evidence in question. BP EOC believes that A Prokhorov did not provide justified proof that there is any threat of information loss or concealment.”

In mid September an arbitration court in Tyumen cancelled an order to search the Moscow premises of BP EOC after appeals were made by both the BP offshoot and Rosneft. That left the 19 July ruling still standing, however, which BP appealed, leading to Monday’s ruling.

Lawyers acting for TNK-BP told Upstream last month that they would appeal the mid-September Tyumen ruling but a spokesperson for the firm would not make any comment regarding Monday’s development in Omsk.

Article: BP EOC: BP in Russian office raid victory
Article Source: UP Stream Online
Author: Eoin O’Cinneide

BP EOC: BP in Russian office raid victory