United States of America, et al. ex. rel. Ronald J. Streck v. Eli Lilly and Company

Chicago, Illinois, whistleblower lawyers represented the Plaintiff who used the Defendant on a qui tam theory.



Relator Ronald Streck first publicly accused pharmaceutical companies of reporting falsely de-

flated drug prices to the government in 2011. Over a decade later, a jury decided in his favor against Eli Lilly, one of the largest drug companies in the world.



At a broad level, we think the jury verdict underscores a useful lesson: overcomplicated and hyper technical interpre-

tations cannot defeat common-sense plain readings of text. Here, federal law required Lilly to tell the government the average price it received for drugs covered by Medicaid. In its supply chain, Lilly sold drugs to wholesalers, who then sold the product to retail pharmacies. From 2005 to 2017—the relevant period—Lilly charged the wholesalers at two stages for its drugs. First, the wholesalers paid the initial drug price Lilly set. Second, if Lilly raised the price after the wholesalers took possession of the drugs, but before the wholesalers resold to a pharmacy, Lilly required the wholesalers to credit the subsequent price increase. In other words, when Lilly sold a drug for $10 on Monday, and raised the price to $11 before the wholesaler sold it on Wednesday, the wholesaler needed to remit Lilly an additional dollar of value.

The jury returned a verdict in Streck’s favor of $61,229,217. The FCA trebled the monetary award to $183,687,651.



Affirmed