Justia Drugs & Biotech Opinion Summaries

The buyers of a pharmaceutical business appealed the Superior Court’s dismissal of their fraudulent-inducement and indemnification claims against the sellers. The trial court determined that the buyers had waived their fraudulent-inducement claims and that the indemnification claim was time-barred. The court’s waiver determination was based on its interpretation of a letter agreement between the parties, executed after the buyers’ acquisition of the business and following governmental proceedings involving FDA and Department of Justice investigations. The sellers argued that the letter agreement precluded further litigation, including the buyers’ claims. The buyers contended that the letter agreement only limited the size and scope of claims for losses attributable to the governmental proceedings. The Superior Court agreed with the sellers and dismissed the buyers’ fraudulent-inducement claims.The Superior Court found that the buyers’ indemnification claim was untimely because it was filed more than 60 months after the acquisition closed, as required by the Purchase Agreement. The court rejected the buyers’ argument that the survival period was tolled due to the sellers’ fraudulent concealment, reasoning that the buyers were on inquiry notice of the alleged breaches well within the limitations period.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and held that the buyers’ interpretation of the letter agreement was reasonable, as was the sellers’ and the trial court’s. The court found the relevant provision of the letter agreement to be ambiguous, making it inappropriate to dismiss the buyers’ fraudulent-inducement claim. The court also concluded that the buyers adequately pleaded that the sellers had fraudulently concealed the facts giving rise to the indemnification claim, potentially tolling the survival period. Consequently, the court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "LGM Holdings, LLC v. Gideon Schurder" on Justia Law

A case involving Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund and Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan, as plaintiffs-appellants, and Steven H. Collis, Richard W. Gochnauer, Lon R. Greenberg, Jane E. Henney, M.D., Kathleen W. Hyle, Michael J. Long, Henry W. McGee, Ornella Barra, D. Mark Durcan, and Chris Zimmerman, as defendants-appellees, was heard by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The plaintiffs, shareholders in AmerisourceBergen Corporation, brought a derivative complaint against the directors and officers of the Corporation alleging that they failed to adopt, implement, or oversee reasonable policies and practices to prevent the unlawful distribution of opioids. The plaintiffs claimed that this led to AmerisourceBergen incurring liability exceeding $6 billion in a 2021 global settlement related to the Company's role in the opioid epidemic. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware initially dismissed the complaint, basing its decision on a separate federal court finding that AmerisourceBergen had complied with its anti-diversion obligations under the Controlled Substances Act. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the lower court had erred in considering the federal court's findings as it changed the date at which demand futility should be considered and violated the principles of judicial notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis" on Justia Law

Appellees, Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., and Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc. (collectively, “Rite Aid”), held a general liability insurance policy underwritten by defendany Chubb, Limited ("Chubb"). Rite Aid and others were defendants in multi-district litigation before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL Opioid Lawsuits”). Plaintiffs in that suit filed over a thousand suits in the MDL Opioid Lawsuits against companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain for their roles in the national opioid crisis. Certain suits were bellwether suits - including the complaints of Summit and Cuyahoga Counties in Ohio (“the Counties”) which were at issue here. The question this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court was whether insurance policies covering lawsuits “for” or “because of” personal injury required insurers to defend their insureds when the plaintiffs in the underlying suits expressly disavowed claims for personal injury and sought only their own economic damages. The Superior Court decided that Rite Aid’s insurance carriers were required to defend it against lawsuits filed by two Ohio counties to recover opioid-epidemic-related economic damages. As the court held, the lawsuits sought damages “for” or “because of” personal injury because there was arguably a causal connection between the counties’ economic damages and the injuries to their citizens from the opioid epidemic. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the plaintiffs, governmental entities, sought to recover only their own economic damages, specifically disclaiming recovery for personal injury or any specific treatment damages. Thus, the carriers did not have a duty to defend Rite Aid under the governing insurance policy. View "ACE American Insurance Company v. Rite Aid Corporation" on Justia Law

OptiNose AS and OptiNose, Inc. (collectively, OptiNose) agreed to license its Exhalation Delivery Systems (“EDS”) technology to Currax Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The parties limited the License Agreement to a product which used a powder EDS device to deliver the migraine treatment drug sumatriptan into the nasal cavity. The product covered by the license, a powder EDS device and sumatriptan together, was trade-named ONZETRA(R) XSAIL(R). Currax had a limited right to sell the sumatriptan powder EDS device (the “Product”) in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. OptiNose retained the right to sell EDS devices: (1) with powders and liquids other than sumatriptan around the world; and (2) EDS devices with sumatriptan in every area other than those three countries. OptiNose also gave Currax the “first right” to “prosecute and maintain” certain patents related to the Product, listed in the License Agreement as the Product Patents. During Currax’s prosecution of the ’009 Patent Application, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected claims because they were not “patentably distinct” from the claims in another Product Patent. To overcome the patent office rejection, Currax needed to file a terminal disclaimer over the issued Product Patent. Currax needed a power of attorney from OptiNose to file a terminal disclaimer. OptiNose refused to provide it. Currax filed suit against OptiNose in the Court of Chancery, seeking an order of specific performance requiring OptiNose to grant it a power of attorney. OptiNose counterclaimed for a declaration that the License Agreement did not require it to provide a power of attorney. According to OptiNose, Currax’s right to prosecute Product Patents did not include a power of attorney, and, in any event, Currax could not file a terminal disclaimer without OptiNose’s advance approval, which it had not given. The Court of Chancery granted Currax’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the License Agreement OptiNose to provide a power of attorney to prosecute the ’009 Application. On appeal, the parties focused primarily on OptiNose’s advance approval right, and whether a terminal disclaimer “relate[s] to or characterize[s] the Device component of the Patent or other OptiNose intellectual property.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s judgment that filing a terminal disclaimer in the ’009 Application prosecution was included in the rights OptiNose gave to Currax under the License Agreement. View "Optinose AS v. Currax Pharmaceuticals, LLC" on Justia Law