John P. Bueker

Experience

False Claims Act Matters

• Major biotechnology company. Representing leading biotechnology company in an action being prosecuted by the Massachusetts USAO alleging violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute as a result of donations the company made to an independent charity whose mission was to offer copayment assistance to financial deserving patients prescribed the company’s blockbuster medication.
• Major pharmaceutical company. Representing a multinational pharmaceutical company in False Claims Act litigation alleging off-label promotion and violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute based on purported sham speaker payments, and extravagant meals and travel. The case, which raises novel First Amendment issues, has twice been dismissed on public disclosure bar grounds and is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
• Medical coding company. Representing a global health and community care technology company in False Claims Act litigation, alleging fraudulent upcoding of Medicare claims. The case was dismissed by the district court and is currently on appeal before the Sixth Circuit.
• Software company. Representing a software company in responding to a civil investigative demand seeking information about the encryption security features of software it sold to the United States government under the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
• Major medical device company. Successfully represented a major medical device company in a False Claims Act suit that alleged the company provided unlawful patient support for its signature pacemakers in the form of technical assistance provided in connection with the required periodic checks of the proper functioning of these complex devices. Litigated the case through summary judgment, obtaining precedent-setting rulings along the way, and ultimately obtained a settlement on a less than cost of defense basis.

Business and Commercial Litigation

• Consumer class action. Successfully represented The TJX Companies, Inc. and certain subsidiaries in consumer class actions brought in California, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Washington state alleging TJX's comparative price advertising practices violated consumer protection statutes in those jurisdictions, including California’s CLRA and UCL.
• Securities litigation – Section 10(b) case. Successfully represented Keurig Green Mountain Coffee Roastersin stock drop litigation, securing a favorable loss causation ruling at summary judgment that led to a favorable settlement.
• Securities litigation – Section 11 case. Successfully represented a multinational investment bank in a matter that alleged violations of Section 11 of the federal securities laws and comparable provisions of state blue sky laws arising out of a $130 million debt offering for a Chinese company that entered the U.S. public securities markets by way of a reverse merger.
• Earn-out dispute. Trial counsel for the founders of an internet retailer in a two-week jury trial with the purchasers of the business over a multimillion-dollar earn-out payment.
• Lease dispute. Following a lengthy bench trial, obtained a defense verdict for a major global law firm in a complex dispute over its conduct in connection with its termination of a lease.

MDL Experience

• In re: Opioids MDL. Trial counsel for a global biopharmaceutical company in the largest multidistrict litigation in history. Developed the factual and expert record in state litigation where the company was prepared to try its case prior to global resolution of the more than 3,800 pending cases.
• In re: Average Wholesale Pricing Litigation. National coordinating and trial counsel for Schering-Plough Corporation and Warrick Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a series of complex civil litigations brought by 23 state attorneys general alleging False Claims and Unfair Trade Practices Act violations. Successfully tried the bellwether MDL case. The bench trial opinion eventually led to the nationwide settlement on terms favorable to the clients. Also tried two state cases to juries, one of which settled on favorable terms while the jury was deliberating and the other resulted in a nominal damages award.