Advertisement
Advertisement
U.S. markets close in 5 hours 43 minutes
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (TEVA)

NYSE - Nasdaq Real Time Price. Currency in USD
Add to watchlist
8.40-0.02 (-0.24%)
As of 10:16AM EST. Market open.
Advertisement
Sign in to post a message.
  • A
    ATM 30
    Tevas’s Motion to REARGUE or in the alternative FOR MISTRIAL
    December 7 (excerpt Doc. 8882)

    In arriving at its December 6, 2021 Ruling, Teva Entities respectfully submit that the Court inadvertently omitted an analysis of New York’s foundational requirements for the admission of evidence and NY’s balancing test.

    The Court’s Order violates New York law for two independent legal reasons: (1) the Order itself makes clear that there is no cognizable legal basis for the admission of the videos and Plaintiffs have failed to lay a proper foundation for them; and (2) any potential relevance (which the Order does not identify) is substantially outweighed by the substantial undue prejudice.

    Defendants are very near to resting their case, with the close of evidence and summations expected any day.

    Rather than exclude the parody videos, the Court, without legal explanation, found that two of them were admissible. Worse yet, it arbitrarily permitted Plaintiffs to designate two videos of their choosing to play for the jury. It apparently did so based on the singular fact that the Special Master in the MDL deemed the videos admissible in a case that never went to trial.

    To the extent the Court declines to overturn its Ruling, Teva respectfully request a further limiting instruction (Exhibit A), and the ability to call witnesses to the stand to provide testimony about the videos.

    Denial of this motion for reconsideration paired with denial of Cephalon’s proposed alternative relief will warrant a new trial. Under CPLR § 4402, a new trial is mandated whenever necessary to prevent a substantial possibility of injustice. A mistrial should be granted where, as here, erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court deprive a party of a fair trial.
    Bullish
  • D
    Datanerd
    So why is TEVA finally going up. We had the TEVA tail and on Friday, I took a $400k loss to get off of margin. I still have 100k but my total loss was nearly $550k due to my falling in love with TEVA. We are going north at this point and I am drunk as I write
    Bullish
  • A
    ATM 30
    Jury’s Opioid Verdict Against Pharmacy Chains May Not Survive Appeal
    By Jef Feeley | November 30, 2021

    The companies, which vowed to appeal, may not have to work hard to make their case, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who follows the litigation. Overturning the verdict could be justified by the decision of the judge overseeing the trial to not grant a mistrial, even after a juror admitted to doing Internet research about claims against the pharmacy operators, Tobias said. Jurors are only permitted to consider evidence and arguments presented in court.

    “There are plenty of grounds available to the appeals court judges to order a retrial.”

    “If a pharmacy had dumped thousands of opioid pills onto the public road, there might indeed be a public nuisance claim,” Michael Krauss, professor emeritus at George Mason University’s Law School, Krauss said in a statement after the verdict. “Legally dispensing apparently legally written prescriptions is not a public nuisance any more than legally dispensing gasoline would be.”

    Polster’s failure to declare a mistrial over the juror research may be the strongest basis for an appeal, according to Tobias.

    Not only did the juror violate the judge’s admonition against outside research, but she shared the information she got with her colleagues on the jury, Tobias said. Defense lawyers argued at the time that their clients were prejudiced by the juror’s misconduct.

    “Appellate courts often show deference to trial judges who are on the scene, but this one may be a little too far gone for that,” Tobias said.
    Bullish
  • J
    JohnD
    TEVA will not go up. Because I am holding it. I refuse to sell it. Will ride it down to zero like I do with all of my stocks.
  • A
    ATM 30
    Opioid Jury Finally Sees Teva's Movie-Parody Sales Videos
    "Austin Powers" and "A Few Good Men"
    Closing arguments set for Wednesday morning.

    Source: law360
  • R
    Rami
    TEVA wins the CA trial.
    Oklahoma court overturns $465 mln opioid judgment against J&J.
    Still, the stock is being manipulated by saying it might lose the NY trial.

    Buffet did not sell shares of TEVA.
    Still, the stock is being manipulated by saying he might.

    TEVA reduced its debt from 40 billion to almost 20 billion in 3 years.
    Still, the stock is being manipulated by saying the debt is too high.

    Good news becomes bad news.
    This manipulation may last longer than expected, but eventually Opioids will be a thing of the past and debt will be reduced to 15 billion (even less) by the end of 2023.
  • D
    Donna
    You can literally buy any other stock or just the QQQ and you will do better. Long but not strong.

    I do appreciate all the updates but I am getting tired and the opportunity cost is real. Debt levels and lack of pipeline are also holding Teva back.

    It's just being traded with no real momentum.

    Holding but not buying anymore. VIAC...same story.
  • s
    saully
    Instead of working with the largest generic pharm co in the world to bring us inexpensive meds, our govt has three different law suits against them trying to ruin them.
  • b
    bz
    ….so does anyone actually know - did the plaintiff and defense in ny rest and we are now awaiting jury verdict? Or what is the status? Thank you in advance.
  • E
    EZDUBL
    ATM 30….thanks very much for all your informational posts

    Most show the hollow argument of the plaintiffs

    Unfortunately it is still in the hands of the jury…

    Where do you see the NY trial and more importantly the global settlement landing?

    Thanks
  • A
    ATM 30
    ORDER - Parody videos
    Dec, 6

    The Court will allow the display of 2 of the videos chosen by Plaintiffs with the following instruction to the Jury.

    1. These videos date back to 2006 or 2007 . Your must consider that time lapse in connection with whatever weight, if any, you assign to them.

    2. A Parody is defined as an exaggeration to the event parodied for comedic effect. The key words are "exaggeration" and comedic effect. A SNL parody of a Presidential Press Conference is not an actual replication of the event.
    Again, keep that in mind if you choose to assign weight, if any, to the parodies.

    3. You may assign some weight or no weight to these parodies. You may note these videos were commissioned and funded by Cephalon.

    4. They are not being offered for the truth of the event parodied. They are for you to see and determine their weight, if any.

    (Doc. 8872)
    Neutral
  • A
    ATM 30
    Statute of limitations - Final Jury Instruction

    You have heard the lawyers and the Court make reference to "the statute of limitations" throughout this trial.

    In order to prevail on the claim for Public Nuisance, Plaintiffs must show the Public Nuisance* continues (persists) into a time frame within the Statute of Limitations.

    How do you do that? Several times within these instructions I have used the words AMOUNTING TO and/or CONTINUES through today.

    Please keep those words in mind when you consider the relationship between proven acts and omissions of specific Defendants and the Plaintiffs' claims that they are responsible for: the Public nuisance that currently persists#.

    (my notes)
    *the act that which injuries
    # Will the jury understand from that, that the public nuisance is NOT the opioid epidemic, but the acts? (misleading advertising and diversion)

    ----fragments of other instructions:


    "you are being asked to determine only whether one or more of the Defendants created, contributed, maintained or CONTINUED a public nuisance."

    "convincing evidence that a Defendants' substantial interference with a public right caused, contributed, CONTINUED or maintained a public nuisance, you must assign a percentage of responsibility to that Defendant"

    "that the same conduct that resulted in the guilty plea CONTINUED going forward in time. The Court finds that that particular link was not established."

    "A right common to the general public is a right or an interest that belongs to the community-at-large. It is a right that is collective in nature. A public right is DIFFERENT from an individual right that everyone has, like the right not to be unjustifiably harmed."
  • a
    avi
    Trying to discourage shareholders but one day. It will explode up powerfully it will be sharp and fast patience is the name of the game
  • B
    BS1881
    Debt Maturities: Fitch believes that Teva has adequate sources of liquidity from FCF and available cash to meet its obligations through the forecast period and has the ability to weather significantly greater litigation expenses above amounts already contemplated by the agreement in principle for a nationwide settlement framework announced Oct. 21, 2019.
  • g
    george
    Fitch is first to issue a health certificate for Teva assuming a high payout of about $4B over 18 years.
    This assumption seems to be over the top, but still manageable. A better outcome will send us back to $14+.
  • A
    ATM 30
    December 2 - Motion 345
    Tevas' motion to strike the testimony and exhibits in question is denied, except that it is granted with respect to testimony concerning the 2008 guilty plea, as the jury will be instructed.

    ***CONTINUOUS PUBLIC NUISANCE
    Defendants' argument that even if they caused or contributed to the Opioid Epidemic, and the epidemic constituted a public nuisance, that they cannot be found liable if that conduct occurred more than three years prior to the commencement of this action, unless Plaintiffs also prove new acts within the three years limitations period is unavailing under the continuous nuisance or continuing wrong rule. Although damages may be limited to a three year period, damages are not at issue in this liability only phase of the public nuisance trial.

    ***INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
    It is for the jury in this case to decide whether the evidence in this case is too speculative to reach such a conclusion. In this case the weight to be afforded to the evidence is to be assessed by the trier of fact, i.e., the jury, and not the Court. With one significant exception, discussed below.

    ***THE 2008 CEPHALON GUILTY PLEA
    This Court, functioning as gate keeper of the evidence, and not as the trier-of-fact, finds that the evidence attempted to be elicited thereafter by Plaintiffs with respect to any off-label marketing conduct occurring afterwards is too tenuous and remote to support the admissibility of the 2008 Cephalon misdemeanor guilty plea, and constitutes improper propensity evidence.

    ---

    In the CONTINUOUS PUBLIC NUISANCE the court relies on the precedents of these cases:

    1- continued entry of boulders, mud and debris onto the plaintiffs' property and the continued presence of fiIl
    2- nuisance consisting of continued presence of buried leaves and lawn debris
    3- continued presence of wall and iron posts placed on property may constitute a continuing nuisance even if damages are limited to the three years prior to the commencement of the action
    4- continued presence of gasoline caused by a leak which occurred more than 3 years prior to commencement of the action
    5- continued presence of chemical waste causing contamination in water supply as continuing public nuisance
  • l
    leka
    Fitch Revises Teva's Outlook to Stable; Affirms Ratings at 'BB-'
    It’s all coming together, all we need is settlement and 20+ we go.
  • A
    ATM 30
    Selected sentences from the New York Jury Instructions (8861-1)
    (the order and the words remain unchanged)

    1. A party who must establish its case by clear and convincing evidence, which is the standard each Plaintiff must meet in this case, must satisfy you that there is a high degree of probability that what the Plaintiff claims is what actually happened.

    2. In reaching your conclusion you may not guess or speculate.

    3. You are permitted to draw, from facts which you find have been proved, reasonable inferences that you feel are justified in light of your common experience.

    4. In evaluating whether a Plaintiff has met its burden of proof against a particular Defendant, you must evaluate the evidence relating to that Plaintiff’s claim against that particular Defendant.

    5. To prevail on the Public Nuisance claim under New York law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct amounts to a substantial interference with the exercise of a common right to the public, thereby endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons.

    6. In determing whether an interference with a public right is substantial, you may consider whether Defendants’ conduct:
    • (a) involved a significant interference with the public health,
    • (b) was prohibited by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, or
    • (c) is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the actor knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right.

    7. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated certain laws

    8. Each Plaintiff claims that each Defendant substantially contributed to an oversupply of legal prescription opioids, and to diversion of those opioids into the illicit market outside of appropriate medical channels, thereby endangering public health or safety.

    9. The Federal and New York Controlled Substances Acts and their accompanying regulations do not require strict or perfect compliance.

    10. Only unlawful conduct that causes a significant interference with a public right to health or safety can be a public nuisance.

    11. Plaintiffs contend that each Manufacturer Defendant unreasonably and substantially interfered with a public right by making false and misleading statements to prescribers in marketing its prescription opioid medicines in New York.

    12. A statement is not false or misleading unless a Plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the statement was not supported by credible evidence at the time it was made.

    13. An act or omission is regarded as a cause of an occurrence if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the occurrence, that is, if it had such an effect in producing the occurrence that reasonable people would regard it as a cause of the occurrence.

    14. In order for a Plaintiff to prevail it must prove that a Public Nuisance caused by a Defendant persists beyond the cut off date (08/2013).
    Additionally, you must find that the Plaintiff has met the causation requirement by clear and convincing evidence.

    16. If you determine that a portion of the harm was proximately caused by the conduct of the severed Defendant, you should assign that percentage to the severed Defendant on the verdict sheet. You should take into account the evidence you have heard relevant to wrongdoing and the evidence you have heard relevant to causation.

    17. If you find that a Plaintiff was culpable and that its conduct was also a substantial factor in causing the Public Nuisance, you must then apportion the fault between that Plaintiff and each other culpable party.
  • A
    ATM 30
    In the New York trial, most of the instructions to the jury are already set, I will put here the parts that I find interesting:

    The first is that the evidence to be taken into account must be geographically specific (despite the objection of the plaintiffs), so the evidence from other States by itself is not proof:

    "Plaintiff Suffolk County has asserted a claim against all Defendants. When you are evaluating whether Suffolk County met its burden of proof against a particular Defendant, you must consider only the evidence involving conduct and occurrences relating to and impacting Suffolk County."

    The rule is also specific to Nassau County and the state of NY.
    Bullish
Advertisement
Advertisement