RLG Comments on Witness Allegations That Takeda Put Profits Before Safety
The nation’s first Actos trial is currently underway in Los Angeles. On Tuesday, a witness testified that emails from managers at the Japan-based Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., indicate that the company was more concerned about protecting profits than addressing the serious side effects associated with the diabetes drug. RLG, which represents clients in Actos bladder cancer lawsuits, is concerned about this revelation. Following the drug’s introduction in 1999, Actos eventually became the best-selling diabetes medication, according to Bloomberg.
RLG principal Rochelle Rottenstein notes that Takeda recently won approval for the diabetes drug Nesina, which was designed to replace Actos, for which the company lost its patent in 2011. During the trial (In re: Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., CGC-12-518535; Los Angeles, California Superior Court), the plaintiff’s expert, clinical pharmacologist Howard Greenberg, said that the emails indicated that Takeda employees were concerned with regulators’ requiring the company to add risk labels to the product and the effect that a label would have on the bottom line, according to Bloomberg.
“European regulators ordered the drug off the market in 2011 because data showed an increase risk of bladder cancer and heart problems in Actos users,” Rottenstein said. “It is important that during this trial all the facts come out and that plaintiff Jack Cooper has his opportunity to pursue compensation for his injuries.”
RLG has been monitoring the case via news reports and the Courtroom View Network livestream. RLG represents clients who believe they have been harmed by Actos and encourages people to visit the firm’s Actos lawsuits page on its website and to download a free brochure to help them determine if they have a case.
The bulk of the more than 3,000 Actos cases are being handled in a federal pretrial consolidation called a “multidistrict litigation” in the Western District of Louisiana (MDL-2299). Cooper’s state court suit is not part of that MDL.
