News

Contact:
Tim Bannon
203-588-8450

For Immediate Release

CLASS ACTION DENIED IN KENTUCKY OXYCONTIN LITIGATION;
JUDGE RULES THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED ALL LEGAL TESTS

 Purdue Wins First Court Test of Class Status

Stamford, CT – February 28, 2002 – In the first  court test of whether a class action can be maintained in a lawsuit involving the prescription medication OxyContin^© (oxycodone HCL controlled-release) Tablets, a federal judge in Kentucky has denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 

On Monday, February 25, 2002, Judge Danny C. Reeves of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a 27-page opinion and order finding that the plaintiffs in Foister, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. failed to satisfy any of the legal “prerequisites for certifying a class action.” The Court expressly found that:

“a.  The Plaintiffs Have Not Shown That Joinder Is Impracticable.”

“b. The Plaintiffs Have Not Established That There Are Common Questions of Law or of Fact For Class Certification Purposes.”

“c.  The Claims of The Representatives Are Not Typical of the Class.”

“d. The Court Cannot Conclude That The Plaintiffs Will Fairly and Adequately Protect the Interests of the Class.”

“This is an important legal victory for Purdue Pharma,” stated Howard R. Udell, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Stamford, Connecticut-based distributor of OxyContin^©.  “Citing a long line of cases holding that class actions in cases such as this are inappropriate, Judge Reeves rejected every single one of the plaintiffs’ arguments in support of class status.  We expect that his opinion will be an important precedent for other judges reviewing similar class action allegations in other cases involving OxyContin in the future.”

The plaintiffs in Foister had claimed to represent a proposed class of persons allegedly harmed by OxyContin© after developing an addiction to it after it was prescribed to them by a physician for pain relief.  Purdue Pharma L.P. was named as a defendant when the lawsuit began in Kentucky state court, along with other pharmaceutical companies, two private physicians and a hospital.  The hospital and the doctors have since been dismissed from the case.

The Kentucky ruling is the most recent in a string of legal victories for Purdue Pharma.  Since December, lawsuits against the company have been dismissed in Mississippi, North Carolina and Maine.  In an earlier decision in the Foister case, another federal judge, Jennifer B. Coffman on December 27, 2001 denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, saying:

“The plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence showing that the defendants’ marketing, promotional, or distribution practices have ever caused even one tablet of OxyContin to be inappropriately prescribed or diverted.”  

“We are gratified by Judge Reeves’ Foister ruling and others which preceded it,” concluded Udell.  “We have an absolute commitment to defending ourselves in court against the baseless claims of plaintiffs’ lawyers who bring lawsuits with great fanfare in the hope of a cash settlement.  We look forward to similar outcomes in the future.”

The professional product labeling for OxyContin^© contains the following warning:

       
Full prescribing information for OxyContin is available at http://www.purduepharma.com/PRESSROOM/PI/OXYCONTIN_PI.PDF.

This and other recent announcements are available on the Purdue Pharma website at www.purduepharma.com.