Is Pharmaceutical Research & Development ethical?

What Choice found

Choice can get this wrong — tell us if something's off.

1–10 of 14

Wages & economic policy Official statement Against

AbbVie booked profits from Humira sales offshore

The investigation found that the Republican tax law has enabled AbbVie to generate the bulk of their sales and profits for brand name drugs like Humira in the United States while booking those profits offshore for tax purposes.

3 sourcesRead sources
businessinsider.com
AbbVie, for example, located the right to profit from Humira in its Bermuda subsidiary and manufactured the drug in Puerto Rico, which is considered outside the US for tax purposes since the island is a territory rather than a state.
finance.senate.gov
In 2020, 99% of AbbVie’s taxable income was reported by offshore subsidiaries.
However, AbbVie did provide information related to AbbVie’s taxable income for years 2018 – 2021, including how much of AbbVie’s taxable was reported by controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).
Data obtained by the Committee shows that AbbVie reports virtually no income in the U.S. for tax purposes Throughout the Committee’s investigation, AbbVie repeatedly declined to provide country-by- country information regarding AbbVie’s pre-tax earnings, profit margins, employee headcount and tax Letter from Scott Reents, Vice President, Tax and Treasury, AbbVie Inc., to Ron Wyden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Sep.
AbbVie’s ability to exploit subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes on U.S. prescription drug sales signals a clear need to reform the international tax code.
In 2018, 95% of AbbVie’s taxable income was reported by controlled foreign corporations and AbbVie estimates that CFCs will report over 87% of AbbVie’s taxable income in 2021.
corporations and have had a significant impact on AbbVie’s effective tax rate.”9 The maneuvers employed by AbbVie to avoid paying U.S. taxes on Humira profits involve several key elements: 1.
The investigation found that the Republican tax law has enabled AbbVie to generate the bulk of their sales and profits for brand name drugs like Humira in the United States while booking those profits offshore for tax purposes.
AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. is effectively a tax resident in Puerto Rico and the associated income from sales to AbbVie’s U.S. operations are reported on a Puerto Rico tax return.15 Since income from entities based in Puerto Rico are treated as foreign for tax purposes, income from Humira is taxed not at the U.S. corporate rate of 21%, but the much lower GILTI (Global Intangible Low- Tax Income) rate of 10.5% created by the Republican tax law.
Giant AbbVie Exploits Offshore Subsidiaries to Avoid Paying Taxes on U.S. Drug Sales Provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law allow AbbVie to generate most of its sales in the U.S., while reporting virtually no income in the U.S. for tax purposes.
It is imperative that Congress enact needed international tax reforms that would close loopholes that allow drug companies like AbbVie to stash their profits in tax havens.
The 99% of AbbVie’s income in 2020 that was reported by offshore subsidiaries was likely able to access the substantially lower GILTI rate of 10.5 percent.
finance.senate.gov
AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. is effectively a tax resident in Puerto Rico and the associated income from sales to AbbVie’s U.S. operations are reported on a Puerto Rico tax return.15 Since income from entities based in Puerto Rico are treated as foreign for tax purposes, income from Humira is taxed not at the U.S. corporate rate of 21%, but the much lower GILTI (Global Intangible Low- Tax Income) rate of 10.5% created by the Republican tax law.
AbbVie’s ability to exploit subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes on U.S. prescription drug sales signals a clear need to reform the international tax code.
However, AbbVie did provide information related to AbbVie’s taxable income for years 2018 – 2021, including how much of AbbVie’s taxable was reported by controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).
Senate Finance Committee Investigation Reveals Extent to Which Pharma Giant AbbVie Exploits Offshore Subsidiaries to Avoid Paying Taxes on U.S. Drug Sales Senate Finance Committee Chair Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon July 2022
It is imperative that Congress enact needed international tax reforms that would close loopholes that allow drug companies like AbbVie to stash their profits in tax havens.
The investigation found that the Republican tax law has enabled AbbVie to generate the bulk of their sales and profits for brand name drugs like Humira in the United States while booking those profits offshore for tax purposes.
Data obtained by the Committee shows that AbbVie reports virtually no income in the U.S. for tax purposes Throughout the Committee’s investigation, AbbVie repeatedly declined to provide country-by- country information regarding AbbVie’s pre-tax earnings, profit margins, employee headcount and tax Letter from Scott Reents, Vice President, Tax and Treasury, AbbVie Inc., to Ron Wyden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Sep.
In 2020, 99% of AbbVie’s taxable income was reported by offshore subsidiaries.
corporations and have had a significant impact on AbbVie’s effective tax rate.”9 The maneuvers employed by AbbVie to avoid paying U.S. taxes on Humira profits involve several key elements: 1.
1 Interim Report: Senate Finance Committee Investigation Reveals Extent to Which Pharma Giant AbbVie Exploits Offshore Subsidiaries to Avoid Paying Taxes on U.S. Drug Sales Provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law allow AbbVie to generate most of its sales in the U.S., while reporting virtually no income in the U.S. for tax purposes.
The 99% of AbbVie’s income in 2020 that was reported by offshore subsidiaries was likely able to access the substantially lower GILTI rate of 10.5 percent.
In 2018, 95% of AbbVie’s taxable income was reported by controlled foreign corporations and AbbVie estimates that CFCs will report over 87% of AbbVie’s taxable income in 2021.

Ukraine & Russia Confirmed You decide

AbbVie donates Russia medicine profits to Ukraine

AbbVie announced all profits from sales of its essential medicines in Russia will be donated to support humanitarian relief in Ukraine.

2 sourcesRead sources
business-humanrights.org
As a follow up, I wanted to pass along the news we made yesterday that AbbVie will donate profits from Russia to humanitarian relief efforts in Ukraine.
Today, we are announcing that all profits from sales of AbbVie’s essential medicines in Russia will be donated to support direct humanitarian relief efforts in Ukraine.
business-humanrights.org
Today, we are announcing that all profits from sales of AbbVie’s essential medicines in Russia will be donated to support direct humanitarian relief efforts in Ukraine.
As a follow up, I wanted to pass along the news we made yesterday that AbbVie will donate profits from Russia to humanitarian relief efforts in Ukraine.

Corporate conduct Ruling Against

The Federal Trade Commission approved a final order settling charges that AbbVie’s acquisition of Allergan violated federal antitrust law

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that AbbVie’s $63 billion acquisition of Allergan would violate federal antitrust law.

3 sourcesRead sources
ftc.gov
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joe Simons issued the following statement regarding the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case FTC v. AbbVie. The court ruled that AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie’s conduct. This court order represents the largest monetary award ever in a litigated FTC antitrust case.
ftc.gov
Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that AbbVie’s $63 billion acquisition of Allergan would violate federal antitrust law.
ftc.gov
The district court dismissed the reverse-payment claim, but in June 2018 found AbbVie and Besins liable for filing sham litigation in violation of the antitrust laws, and awarded the FTC $493.7 million in equitable monetary relief to return to consumers.

Corporate conduct Allegation Against

AbbVie is accused of restraining trade and maintaining monopoly

AbbVie is accused of illegally restraining trade and maintaining a monopoly at the time the FTC filed suit.

2 sourcesRead sources
ftc.gov
In any event Shire involved unlawful conduct that had stopped years before the FTC filed suit, whereas here AbbVie and Besins were still illegally restraining trade and maintaining their monopoly at the time the FTC filed suit.
The net result is that even though Besins and AbbVie are equally culpable for the harm they caused to consumers, Besins was required to pay only a small fraction of the monetary judgment intended to compensate consumers for that harm.
ftc.gov
The FTC alleged that Defendants filed sham patent infringement suits against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Perrigo Company, and that AbbVie, Abbott, and Unimed entered into an anticompetitive reverse-payment agreement with Teva.

Corporate conduct Allegation Against

AbbVie is accused of misleading Humira sales growth claims

AbbVie is accused of omitting alleged misconduct in Humira patient and reimbursement support services in financial filings between 2013 and 2018.

3 sourcesRead sources
sec.gov
In October 2018, a federal securities lawsuit, Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.
AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.
In October 2018, a federal securities lawsuit, Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions. In September 2021, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.
sec.gov
AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.
In October 2018, a federal securities lawsuit, Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.
sec.gov
AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.
In October 2018, a federal securities lawsuit, Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie, its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in financial filings between 2013 and 2018 were misleading because they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient and reimbursement support services and other services and items of value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.

Corporate conduct Allegation Against

A Dutch court permitted a case alleging that AbbVie overcharged the Dutch healthcare system for Humira to proceed

A case brought by a Dutch organization claiming that AbbVie’s overcharging the Dutch healthcare system for Humira violated the human right to health was recently permitted to proceed by a Dutch court.5 In the U.S., AbbVie has been accused of using a variety of anticompetitive practices to raise prices for two lucrative drugs.6.

1 sourceRead sources
sec.gov
A case brought by a Dutch organization claiming that AbbVie’s overcharging the Dutch healthcare system for Humira violated the human right to health was recently permitted to proceed by a Dutch court.5 In the U.S., AbbVie has been accused of using a variety of anticompetitive practices to raise prices for two lucrative drugs.6

Corporate conduct Ruling Against

U.S. Court Ruled AbbVie Used Sham Litigation

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over Androgel and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers.

4 sourcesRead sources
ftc.gov
In a June 2018 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that AbbVie used sham litigation to illegally maintain its monopoly over the testosterone replacement drug Androgel, and ordered $448 million in monetary relief to consumers who were overcharged for Androgel as a result of AbbVie’s conduct.
The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court in September 2014 charging that AbbVie Inc. and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. illegally blocking American consumers’ access to lower-cost alternatives to Androgel by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors.
PRESS RELEASE: Federal Trade Commission Withdraws Remaining Case against AbbVie after Supreme Court Decision Strips Consumers of Relief
ftc.gov
The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court in 2014 charging that AbbVie Inc. and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. illegally blocking American consumers’ access to lower-cost alternatives to Androgel by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors.
ftc.gov
Federal Trade Commission Withdraws Remaining Case against AbbVie after Supreme Court Decision Strips Consumers of Relief | Federal Trade Commission
ftc.gov
In Count I of the complaint, the FTC alleges that AbbVie and Besins maintained an illegal monopoly through the filing of sham patent infringement lawsuits against two potential competitors, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) and Perrigo Company (“Perrigo”), to delay entry into the market of their generic versions of AndroGel.1 1.
14-5151 : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Bartle, J. June 29, 2018 The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has sued defendants AbbVie Inc., Abbott Laboratories, and Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC (collectively, “AbbVie”), as well as Besins Healthcare, Inc. (“Besins”), for violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C.

Workplace equity Allegation Against

AbbVie is accused of age discrimination

An AbbVie sales employee accused the company of age discrimination, claiming he was passed over for internal jobs in favor of younger workers without his credentials.

1 sourceRead sources
law360.com
AbbVie Sales Rep Alleges Age Discrimination In Promotions
An AbbVie sales employee has accused the biopharmaceutical company of age discrimination in Pennsylvania federal court, saying he was passed over for internal jobs in favor of younger workers without his credentials.

Corporate conduct Confirmed Against

FDA may refuse AbbVie's 510(k) or PMA approval requests

The FDA may refuse AbbVie's request for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of new products as a regulatory sanction.

1 sourceRead sources
sec.gov
Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions: warning letters or untitled letters; fines, injunctions and civil penalties; recall or seizure of AbbVie’ products; operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production; refusing AbbVie’ request for 510(k) clearance or PMA approval of new products; withdrawing 510(k) clearance or PMA approvals that are already granted; and criminal prosecution.

Corporate conduct Allegation Against

AbbVie Inc. is accused of amassing a patent thicket

AbbVie Inc. is accused of amassing a patent thicket to maintain its monopoly in the Humira market.

1 sourceRead sources
justice.gov
Plaintiffs-appellants allege that defendant-appellee AbbVie Inc. has maintained its mono poly in the market for the drug Humira by, among other conduct, filin g hundreds of patent applications and thereby amassing a “patent thicke t.” Through this aspect of their theory, plaintiffs effectively would attach antitrust liability to the procurement of a large portfolio of patents, a result contrary to antitrust law and patent law.