The law firm Wisner Baum is known for its successful litigation against Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer and the cancer-linked H2 blocker Zantac. It was recently cleared to bring a RICO lawsuit (”Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) claiming that Eli Lilly and Takeda engaged in a decade-long conspiracy through mail and wire fraud to conceal the risk of bladder cancer linked to their drug Actos. The trial is set for November 30, 2026.
We spoke with R. Brent Wisner, the firm’s managing partner and lead trial attorney, about the trial’s implications.
MR:. Before we talk about your RICO suit, please tell us who Takeda is and what the drug Actos, pioglitazone, is.
RBW: Takeda was originally a chemical company. They wanted to break into pharmaceuticals...and have become one of the biggest ones in Asia by a lot--they’re huge. They made a lot of money off of Covid vaccines.
[Actos is] a specific type of Type 2 diabetes medication called the TZD, as a fancy technical term, but it’s in the class of drugs like Avandia. Actos actually was more successful than Avandia during the mid 2000s and then in 2013 the bladder cancer issue...came out, and they basically didn’t pull it off the market, but they issued a warning.
The usage plummeted and then it went generic. So, Takeda was able to basically make as much money as they possibly could when it was brand [which cost more than generics] and then the truth came out right when it became it became generic, so they didn’t lose much money. So, they made over $30 billion on Actos.
MR: Can you explain to non-legal people like me how a big drugmaker might partner with another company to cover their risks or for “indemnification”?
RBW: Since Eli Lilly, before it even entered the market, identified bladder cancer as the primary risk [of Actos] they said...”we’re worried about being sued about bladder cancer, but if you agree to pay for any damages we have to pay and our litigation costs [we] will be your partner.” And Takeda said, “That’s fine.” And so Eli Lilly was like, “Great we can make all the money and have none of the risk,” whereas Takeda has had to pay the bill.
MR: Didn’t the Pharma giant Upjohn decline involvement because of Actos safety signals?
RBW: Upjohn didn’t think it was safe, Eli Lilly didn’t think it was safe. But they [Lilly] were okay with doing it provided that that Takeda would pay the bill. The truth is, millions and millions of Americans were exposed to this carcinogen without their consent because of fraud and had they [the drugmakers] told the truth they [patients] would have taken Metformin or some other drugs that don’t have these risk profiles.
MR: The companies deceived the FDA, misreported clinical trial results and destroyed evidence according to your research. Who is the plaintiff in the Eli Lilly/Takeda suit?
RBW: The painters union in Minnesota [International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82]--it’s a labor union; they have a health care fund so they pay for all the costs of medical care for their people whether it be hospitalizations or prescription medications. Actos was the most expensive diabetes medication by a long shot so there was a lot of money spent, both from the consumers and from the perspective of third party payers. We’re basically saying they...paid hundreds and hundreds of 1000s of dollars for Actos prescriptions they wouldn’t have had to pay for. [Takeda] got defrauded money, and they [the union/payers] want their money back.
MR: Where will any settlement money go?
EBW: Because it’s a class case, any money that we recover will be given to everybody and distributed amongst all the third-party payers who were defrauded. That’s what’s so cool about a class case. Instead of just representing one person for one case, you represent everybody. You have a chance to affect justice on a real grand scale.
Some of these big, big verdicts you hear about, you don’t collect, because the court reduces them..[but] not under Rico. This is a class [case] the damages we’re going to get, not only do we collect, but we treble it, so you multiply it by three. And so we’re hoping this is going to be well in excess of seven, $8 billion that Takeda will have to pay.
MR: How could a RICO suit fundamentally change things when other Pharma litigation cases haven’t?
RBW: Because it’s saying, Okay, all the fraud you committed, you pay it all back, not a portion [but] all of it, and then you triple it. It’s an actual punishment. And maybe, if we can get this case to trial, ring that bell years from now, when that company is sitting in that boardroom deciding how they deal with the next problematic drug, somebody raises their hand, some young lawyer, and says, Hey, guys, what about the “Painter’s case”? Like there are consequences, and maybe we should think twice about doing this and maybe do the right thing.
MR: You have called the FDA “fundamentally a marketing arm of Big Pharma” and many agree with you.
RBW: I always tell people this: my job is a consequence of regulatory failure. If the FDA did its job right, truly did its job, then my job wouldn’t exist. The FDA is so captured and so corrupt...and it isn’t a political issue--this is just a societal issue. Doesn’t matter the administration, it’s been that way for so long.
We are really excited. We’ve been litigating this case for over 11 years, so it’s been a long haul, but we’re really not interested in settlement at this point. We want to go to trial and show all the really horrible corporate conduct and get a jury in there and to get a big verdict against Takeda and Lilly...actually collect. END
