PENNSYLVANIA Drug companies argue against suit

The state shouldn't have even filed the action, the companies say.
HARRISBURG (AP) -- Major drug manufacturers are fighting a lawsuit that accuses them of reaping millions from improper manipulation of pharmaceutical prices, arguing that the suit should be tossed out on the grounds that it isn't specific enough.
The companies are also challenging the state's standing to file the action in the first place, saying Attorney General Jerry Pappert lacks the authority to sue on behalf of state agencies and aggrieved consumers.
"The attorney general has taken the position that he can act on behalf of individual consumers in circumstances in which the defendants don't believe the law so permits," said Brett A. Schlossberg, an attorney for New Jersey-based drug manufacturer Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The four-count lawsuit, filed in the state's Commonwealth Court in March, alleges that 13 drug companies and related entities sought to gain market share by offering incentives to pharmacies, doctors and other medical providers to buy products at a lower actual price than what those providers then billed to government agencies, insurance companies and patients.
It alleges that the drug firms worked together to keep prices high and to "conceal and suppress their conduct to prevent detection."
Defendants
The defendants are Aventis, Tap Pharmaceutical Products Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Johnson & amp; Johnson, Baxter International Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., Dey Inc., and nine related entities.
AstraZeneca's preliminary objection filed in court, which mirrors language used by its co-defendants, argues that more detail must be provided about elements of the suit, namely "specific prescription drugs and drug products, ... the free goods and drug samples, the financial incentives and inducements, and the specific Pennsylvania medical programs."
"All the claims listed in our lawsuit were well-researched and carefully considered," Pappert's spokesman, Sean Connolly, said Wednesday. "We are confident that the court will agree and determine that the defendants' objections are meritless."
Commonwealth Court judges were scheduled to hear arguments on the defendants' objections in September.
Schlossberg called the state's position "absolutely unfounded. Basically, if you look at the specific allegations with respect to Aventis, they are so loosey-goosey that we're not sure exactly what it is they're driving at."
State civil procedural rules require plaintiffs to go into detail about the substance of their claim, Abbott Laboratories attorney Joseph U. Metz said.
More specifics
"Pennsylvania requires a very strict standard for allegations of fraud and for allegations of unjust enrichment," Metz said. "What exactly did Abbott do with what drugs? What did Zeneca do? Rather than a broad 'These companies did terrible things."'
The defendants also argue that Pappert's claim is redundant because it was preceded by a similar lawsuit pending in a Massachusetts federal court, and various federal laws preclude Pappert from suing.
They are also asking Commonwealth Court to strike from the complaint references to federal criminal investigations of drug-price manipulation, which the companies called "scandalous and impertinent matter."