Skip to Main Content
Lantern_Icon_blue
Lantern by Labaton
Link_Arrow
ClientConnect_Icon_blue
Client Connect
Link_Arrow
Labaton Logo
  • The Firm
  • Practices
  • Our Team
  • Cases
  • News & Insights
  • Client Services
  • Careers
Contact Us
Established 1963

Back to Resolved Cases
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Updated: October 26, 2016

In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation

Case Materials

Final Order and Judgment
Order Approving Plan of Allocation
Final Approval Brief
Memo of Law ISO Fees
Declaration of Christopher McDonald with Exhibits 1-16
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
Notice of Pendency of Class Action
Preliminary Approval Order
Settlement Notice
Claim Form

After more than nine years of litigation, Labaton Keller Sucharow secured a $95 million settlement on behalf of injured investors.

On July 20, 2016, Labaton Keller Sucharow, as sole court-appointed lead counsel, announced a $95 million settlement in this securities class action against global biotechnology company Amgen, Inc. and certain of its former executives.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on August 9, 2016.

The action alleges that biotech giant Amgen and certain of its former executives made misleading statements and omissions concerning the safety and marketing of two of Amgen's flagship products, the anti-anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen.

In August of 2009, the district court granted lead plaintiff's motion to certify that the action could proceed on behalf of a class of investors damaged by Amgen's alleged fraud.  Labaton Keller Sucharow preserved that victory by securing affirmances in the Ninth Circuit and, more recently, in the United States Supreme Court.  In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in February 2013 held that while securities fraud plaintiffs must prove the "materiality" of an alleged false statement at trial to prevail on the merits, plaintiffs are not required to establish materiality in order to certify a class.

The case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the Firm, on behalf of lead plaintiff, secured another important victory.  On August 4, 2014, the district court largely rejected Amgen's motion to dismiss an amended complaint incorporating additional allegations of fraud, which was filed earlier in 2014.

The case is In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 07-cv-02536 (C.D. Cal.).  Lead plaintiff is Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.  The defendants are Amgen and certain of its former executives.

Background

Amgen appealed the district court's August 2009 ruling to grant lead plaintiff's motion to certify the class to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, lost, and then filed a petition requesting that the Supreme Court of the United States hear its appeal of the Ninth Circuit's decision.  In June of 2012, the Supreme Court granted Amgen's petition; the parties argued the case to the Court on November 5, 2012.

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the Ninth Circuit.  Accordingly, the district court's original order granting class certification is allowed to stand unchanged, and the case will now proceed on behalf of a certified class.  Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

The central question before the Court was primarily a question of timing—when must a securities fraud class action plaintiff who brings its case under the "fraud-on-the-market" theory establish that a defendant company's allegedly misleading statements were material to investors?  The Supreme Court ruled that the materiality question ought to be answered at trial or, at the earliest, on a motion for summary judgment.  The specific rule at the center of the dispute, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), states that actions that satisfy other prerequisites may proceed on behalf of a class if "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members."  Whether an allegedly false statement is or is not material does not raise the specter of "individual issues."  As the Court stated, "because materiality is judged according to an objective standard, the materiality of Amgen's alleged misrepresentations and omissions is a question common to all members of the class Connecticut Retirement [lead plaintiff] would represent."

Settlement Hearing

A Settlement Hearing was held on October 25, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor of the United States District Court for the Norther District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.  The Court approved the Settlement and related relief.

If you have any questions about the settlement, please contact Labaton Keller Sucharow at settlementquestions@labaton.com or 1-888-219-6877, or contact the Administrator, Epiq, at 1-800-462-2317.

logo

Our Locations

New York

140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Tel: +1 212.907.0700

Delaware

222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: +1 302.573.2540

London

1 King William Street
London, EC4N 7AF United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 3582 0981

Washington, D.C.

1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: +1 202.772.1881

Useful Links

  • Practices
  • Cases
  • News & Insights
  • Client Services
  • Contact

The Firm

  • Our Team
  • Our Story
  • Awards & Accolades
  • Offices
  • Social Commitment
  • Careers for Attorneys
  • Careers for Business Professionals
  • Attorney Development

Stay Connected

fbfb
Facebook
Xx
Twitter / X
inin
LinkedIn
Footer_Graphic
© Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP All Rights Reserved 2026
Attorney Advertising DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyCalifornia Privacy Policy and Notice of Collection of Personal InformationTransparency in Coverage Rule