I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 1 6 5 9 - S CT STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
v. BAYER CORPORAT

ION, BAYER P HAR M AC EU T ICA L SCORP ORAT

ION A ND BAY ER H EALTH CAR E, LLC
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 29/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. W I LL I AM H. S I NGLET ARY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : D. RO NNI E M US GR OVE J
. L E RA Y M c NAMARA F RANK K OLB GEO RG E W
. NEV I LLE W IL S O N D A N IE L “D E E ” M IL E S , III AND Y LOW RY A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EES: M I CH A EL P. D O SS W IL L IA M F
. G O O D M A N , III S T E VE N D. OR L ANS KY R IC H A R D D
. R A S K IN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 15/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f i l ed s ui t i n the C hance ry C our t of the Fi r s t J udi ci al D i s tr i ct of H i nds C ount y agai ns tm or e than ei ght y phar m ace ut i cal m anuf actur er s , i ncl udi ng B ayer C o rpo rati o n , B ay er P h arm ac eu ti ca ls C o rpo rati o n , an d B ay er H ea lth ca re , L L C (“B ay er” ).

### 2

T he St at e al l eged thateach of the def endant s had f

r audul ent l y m i s r epr es ent ed the ave r age
w h o les a le p ric e s (A W P ) o f d ru g s p ro v id e d to b e n e fic iar ies o f th e M iss iss ip p i M e d ica id p ro g ra m , c a u s in g th e S ta te to o v e rp a y d ru g p ro v id e rs . ¶2
. A ft er inv esti g ati n g the S tat e’s claim , tw o sp ec ial m asters ap p o inted b y the tr ial co u rt
c on c l ud e d tha ta 2 00 1 Se t t l e mentAgr e e mentb e tw e e n the St a t e a nd Bay e rmad e B ayer uni que among t he def

endant s , and thatbeca us e the St at e had f ai l ed t o pl ead a r ound the 2001 Set t l ementA gr eement , i t s cl ai m s agai ns tB ayers houl d be di s m i s s ed pur suantt o R ul es 12 (b) (6) and 9(b) of

the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re. F oll ow i ng the speci al m ast ers ’
r ecomm endat i on t o di s m i s s f orf ai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed, the chanc el l ordi s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce the St at e’ s cl ai m s agai ns tB ayer . T he St at e appe al s t hat d e c is io n . FACTS ¶3. I n 2001, the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and B ayerC orporat i on en t ered i nt o a Set t l ement Ag r e e me n ta f

t e rf e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s a n d f

o r ty - s e v e n s t a t e s h a d a l l e g e d th a t , d u r i n g th e t i me per i od of J anuary 1993 thr ough A ugus t1999, B ayerC orpor at i on had mi s r epr es ent ed the pr i ces atw hi ch i thad s ol d cert ai n drugs t o the drug pr ovi der s of thos e s t at es . I n the ens ui ng Sett l ementA greem ent, B ayer den i ed thati thad eng aged i n an y fr aud ulentcon du ct , and not ed thati th ad ent er ed i nt o t he s ett l ementagr eementi n 2001 s ol el y “t o avoi d the del ay,
uncert ai nty, i nconveni ence and expe ns e of pr otr act ed l i t i gat i on of

cl ai m s . ”

### A qu itam ac ti on i s “[ a] n a ction brought unde r a st at

utethat a ll ows a pri vat e pe rs on 1 

### to su e for a pen alty, part of wh ich the go vernment or some specifiedpub lic institutio n w ill r e ce ive .” Black ’sLaw Dic ti onary 1282 (8th ed. 2004). The r ef er enc ed qu itam drugs inc lude d (1) Koat e- HPAntihem ophil icFac tor (Hum an) , ( 2) Kogenate Antih e mophi li c Fa ctor (Re com binant) , ( 3) Konyne -80 Fa ct or I X Comple x (Human), (4) Gam im une N, 5% Immune Globul in Intravenous (Human, 5%), (5) Gam im une N, 10% ImmuneGlobul in Intrave nous (Human, 1 0% ), and(6) T hro mbate III A ntithromb in III (H uman ). 3 ¶ 4
. T h e S ettlem e n t A g re e m e n t w a s li m it ed to “c o v ere d co n d u ct, ” w h ich re lat ed to B ay er’s al l eged ac t i ons r egar di ng q u ita m drug s . I n e xc ha ng e f ora r e l e a s e o f

a ny c i vi l or 1 admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m s re l at ed t o t he “cove r ed conduct , ” B ayerpai d M i s s i s s i ppi $48, 608. 09 and agr eed t o p rovi de t he St at e “w i th true pr i ci ng i nf or m at i on thatacc ur at el y r ef l ect s t he p ri ce s at w h ich a ctua l pu rch ase rs bu y the d rug an d b iolog ical pro d u cts so ld b y B ay er” for a p e rio d o f fiv e y e a rs, c o m m e n c in g o n th e d a te o f th e se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t. ¶ 5
. O n O c to b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , fo u r y e a rs a fte r e n ter in g in to th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w ith B ayer , the St at e f

i l ed the compl ai nti n thi s cas e agai ns tB ayerC orpor at i on, B ayer Phar m ace ut i cal s C orpor at i on, B ayerH eal thcar e, L L C , and more than ei gh ty other ph a r mac e ut i c a l manu f

a c tur e r s , a l l e gi ng tha te a c h de f e nd a nth a d mi s r e pr e s e nt e d the A W Ps
o f d ru g s s o l d t o d ru g p r o v i d e r s o f Mi s s i s s i p p i
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y , th e S t a t e a l l e g e d th a tth e AW P i s a vi t al pa r tof

the f or m ul a us ed by the St at e’ s M edi cai d pr ogr am t o es t abl i s h the amount of r ei m bur s ementdue f

r om thatpr ogr am t o drug pr ovi der s , and that , as a cons equenc e of t he drug m anuf

actur er s ’ m i s r epr es ent at i on of the A W Ps, the St at e h ad r ei m bur s ed the drug pr ovi der s of M i s s i s s i ppi ata hi gherra t e t han nece s s ary, re s ul t i ng i n m onet ary dam ages t o t he St at e and i t s t axpaye r s . T he actual c aus es of a ct i on a l l eged by the St at e i n the f i r s tamended compl ai ntar e St at e M edi cai d f r aud, dece pt i ve tr ade pr act i ces , and comm on- l aw f r aud.

### 4

¶6
. O n J une 1, 2006, B ayerm ove d t o di s mi s s the St a t e ’ s c l ai m agai ns tt he B ayer def endant s purs uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , cl ai m i ng thatthe 2001 Set t l ementA gr eementbarr ed the St at e’ s cl ai m s , and thatthe St at e had f ai l ed t o pl ead f

r aud
w i th the part i cular i t y r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 9( b)
. T he s peci al
m as t er s r ecomm ended gra nt i ng B ayer ’ s m ot i on and ent er ed R eport , R ecomm endat i on and O rderN o. 2 (R & R N o. 2) on July 28 , 20 06
. R & R N o. 2 is as f oll ow s: Fi r s t , cont r ary t o t he St at e’ s ass ert i on, t he pl ai n l anguage of the r el eas e i s not l i m i t ed t o cl ai m s based on fr aud. R ather , the r el eas e cove r s ‘ any ci vi l or admi ni s tr at i ve monet ary cl ai m , act i on, s ui torproc eedi ng the St at e has orm ay h a v e u n d e r a n y so u rc e o f la w fo r th e C o v e re d C o n d u c t.’ T h is la n g u a g e p lain ly r equi r es t he di s m i s s al of a l l c l ai m s f

orpr e- s ett l ementconductpert ai ni ng t o the s ix Q u i T a m D ru g s . A l lclai m s as to thos e dr ugs ar e dis m is s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. Second, the St at e has pl eade d no bas i s f ora c l ai m r el at i ng t o p re- s ett l ement conductas t o pr oduct s otherthan the Q ui T am D rugs . T he onl y m ent i on i n the Co mp l a i n to f

a n y Ba y e rp r o d u c t s o c c u r s i n E x h i b i tB, whi c h r e f e r s t o AW P d a ta o n th re e p ro d u c ts – K o a te, K o g e n a te, a n d G a m im u n e – e a c h o f w h ich is a Q ui T am D rug cover ed by the r el eas e. Fur ther , the s ett l ementw as pr ece ded by a br oad bas ed i nves t i gat i on of B ayerl ed by the f

eder al governm entand jo in e d b y 4 7 sta tes . H a d c o n c e rn s a rise n a b o u t p ric e re p o rtin g o n p ro d u c ts otherthan the s i x Q ui Tam D rugs , w e trus tthatthos e conc erns w oul d have b e e n a d d re ss e d in th e c o u rse o f th e in v e stig a tio n a n d se ttl e m e n t. In a n y e v e n t, a b s e n ta n y s p e c i f

i c a l l e g a t i o n o f

wr o n g d o i n g a s t o No n - Qu i T a m D ru g s , we fin d n o b a s is fo r th e S tate ’s c laim s re latin g to th e p re -se ttl e m e n t p e rio d to p ro c e e d a t th is p o in t. I f ata lat erd ate the Stat e has evi dence the c o m p re h e n siv e in v e stig a tio n p re v io u sly m a d e a g a in st B a y e r th a t re su ltedin the s et t l em ent

s hould hav e i ncl uded otherdr ugs f orthe t i m e pr i orto 2001, the Stat e m ay bri ng a new act i on atthatt i m e. A l lclai m s f orB ayerdr ugs other than the s i

x Q uiTam dr ugs pr i ort o 2001 ar e dis m is s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce. T h ird , an d fin a lly , the S tate h a s n o t p lea d e d a c laim w ith re sp e c t to th e p o sts ett l ementt i m e per i od. T he s ett l ementr equi r es B ayert o r eportt o the St at e on a qu art erl y b asi s the av erage sal es pri ce for every on e of i t s drugs. T hese r eport s ar e des i gned t o pr ovi de the St at e w i th ‘true pr i ci ng i nf or m at i on that acc ur at el y r ef

l ect s the pr i ces atw hi ch ac tual pur chas er s buy t he drug and bi ol ogi cal pr oduct s s ol d by B ayer . ’ A bs entany al l egat i on t hatB ayerhas not co m p li ed w ith this requ ir em en t, the S tat e’s claim s – to th e e x tent that they are

### 5

d ir e c te d a t th e p o s t- s e ttle m e n t tim e p e ri o d – a re m o o t. Those clai m s ar e thus dis m is s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶7
. O n Sept e mber5 , 2 00 6, the s pe c i a l mas t e r s e nt e r e d Repo r t , R ecomm endat i on and O rd e r N o . 1 6 (R & R N o . 1 6 ), gr a n tin g the d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n fo r a m o re d e fin ite s tate m e n t. R & R N o. 16 s t at ed: Pl ai nt i f f , w i thi n tw enty ( 20) days of t hi s O r der , s hal l f i l e i t s amended compl ai ntt o com pl y w i th R ul es 8, 9, and 11 and, ata mi ni m um , s hal l pl ead a s t o eac h D ef

endantthe s peci fi c d rug(s ) i n i s s ue, and i f as cert ai nabl e, the al l egedl y f

r audul entA W P( s ) f

oreac h s uch drug, and the basi s f oral l egi ng e a c h su c h A W P w a s fr a u d u len t. ¶8. R atherthan obj ect i ng to R & R N os. 2 an d 16 , the S t at e fi l ed i t s f i r s t amended
c o m p l a i n to n O c t o b e r5 , 2 0 0 6 , a l l e g i n g th a tB a y e rh a d i n f l a t e d i t s AWP s b y a tl e a s t1 7 %, know i ng thatthe St at e w oul d r el y on the i nf l at ed A W P t o e s t abl i s h the r ei m bur s ementdue t o drug p rovi ders. T he St at e al s o l i s t ed i n E xhi bi tA t o the amended compl ai ntthi r ty- one drugs m ar ket ed and s ol d by B ayerthatal l egedl y had gi ven r i s e t o the St at e’ s caus es of
a c tio n . ¶9. N otw i ths t a nd i ng the St a t e ’ s a mend e d c ompl a i nt , the c ha nc e ry courtadopt ed R & R N o. 2 in its e n tirety o n O c to b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , d ism iss in g a ll o f th e S tate ’s c laim s a g a in st B a y e r. A ll
c laim s to p o s t- se ttl e m e n t co n d u c t re g a rd in g a n y d ru g m a rk e ted a n d so ld b y B a y e r a n d a ll
c l a i ms r e l a t e d t o pr e s e t t l e mentc on du c tr e l a t e d t o q u ita m d ru g s w e re d ism iss e d w ith pr ej udi ce, and al l cl ai m s s t emm i ng f r om pr es ett l ementcaus es of act i ons r egar di ng drugs otherthan q u ita m d ru g s w e re d is m is s e d w ith o u t p re ju d ic e .

### 6

¶10. O n N ovember13, 2007, B ayerm oved t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai nt , cont endi ng that , al though the St at e had the r i ghtt o r ef i l e a com pl ai ntf

orcl ai m s s t emm i ng f

r om pr es ett l ementconductr el at ed t o drugs otherthan the q u it a m drugs, ithad f ai l ed t o pl ead f r aud w i th the part i cul ar i ty r equi r ed by R ul e 9( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. B ayeral l eged thatthe St at e’ s amended com pl ai nt“m er el y l i s t [ ed] the names of s ever al B ayer drug s , a l on g wi th a bo i l e rpl a t e al l e ga t i on – m a de as t o a l l de f e nd a nt s – tha tBaye r ’ s A W Ps
w er e ‘ atl eas t17% ’ a bove the ‘ true A ver age W hol es al e Pr i ce i n the mar ketpl ace , ’ ” and that the St at e’ s “boi l erpl at e al l egat i ons of f r aud as t o B ayeri n the A m end ed C om pl ai ntdo not
s uf f i ce t o pl ead a r ound t he pr ecl us i ve ef f ectof B ayer ’ s 2001 Set t l ementorthe C our t ’ s pr i or
rul i ngs di s m i s s i ng the St at e’ s cl ai m s . ” B ayeral s o no t e d tha t , be caus e the amended compl ai nt f ai l ed t o i ncl ude “s peci f i c al l egat i on[ s ] of

w r ongdoi ng as t o non- Q ui T am D rugs [ , ] ” and beca us e ther e w as no expl anat i on i n the amended compl ai ntf or w hy “t he compr ehens i ve i nves t i gat i on p revi ou sl y m ade a gai ns tB ayerthatr es ul t ed i n the s ett l ements houl d have i ncl uded otherdrugs f

orthe t i m e pr i ort o 2001[ , ] ” di s m i s s al purs uan tto R ul es 9( b) and 1 2 (b)(6 ) w as p rop er. ¶11. O n February 25, 2008, A vent i s Phar m ace ut i cal s , I nc. , f i l ed a mot i on f

orj udgm ent on th e p lea d in g s, p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (c ), o n b e h a lf o f a ll def endant s i n the ac t i on. I n r es pons e, the s peci al m as t er s ent er ed R eportand R ec o m m en d ati o n N o . 3 3 (R & R N o . 3 3 ) de n y in g th e m o ti o n b y n o ti n g that the S tat e’s amended compl ai nthad cur ed any s peci f i ci ty def ect s t hathad exi s t ed i n t he St at e’ s or i gi nal
c o m p la in t, a n d th a t a d d itio n a l s p e c if ic ity w a s n o t r e q u ir e d
.

### Baye r wa s the s olere maining def endant in thi s a ction a ft er thechance ry c ourt 2 

### trans fe rr ed a llothe r de fe ndant s to the Chance ry Cour t of Rankin County; thus , the order dismissin g eachof B ayer’s claims w as a final andapp ealable o rder und er Mississip pi Rule of Ci vilProc edur e 54(b). M.R. C.P. 54(b)
. 7 ¶ 1 2
. N ot w i t hs t andi ng R & R N o. 33, t he spe ci al m as t er s ent er ed R epor t and R ecomm endat i on N o. 35 ( R & R N o. 35) on A pr i l 2, 2008, gr ant i ng B ayer ’ s i ndi vi dual m ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 9( b) and 12( b) ( 6)
. T he s peci al
m ast ers op i ned that, aft er R & R N o. 2, the S t at e’s on l y survi ving cau ses of act i on w ere tho se st em m i ng fr om pr es ett l ementconductr el at ed t o non- q u ita m drugs , and that , beca us e the St at e had f

ai l ed t o pr ovi de the s peci al mast er s e vi dence thatthe compr ehens i ve i nves t i gat i on l eadi ng t o the 2001 Sett l ementA gr eements houl d have i ncl uded drugs otherthan the qui tam d ru g s , d is m is s a l o f t h o s e c la im s w a s p ro p e r. ¶13. T he court ent er ed an or der adopt i ng R & R N o. 35 i n i t s ent i r ety, di s m i s s i ng al l of t he S tate ’s c laim s a g a in st B a y e r. F ro m th is fin a l o rd e r, th e S tate filed a tim e ly a p p e a l. 2 I S S UES ¶14. T he i s s ues pr es ent ed by the par t i es ar e: ( 1) w hethert he t r i al cour ter r ed i n gr ant i ng B ayer ’ s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he St at e’ s pr es ett l ementcl ai m s r egar di ng non- qui ta m drugs , and ( 2) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng t hat t he 2001 Sett l ement A gr eementbarr ed the St at e’ s cl ai m f ordama ges rel at ed t o pr es ett l ementcl ai m s r egar di ng
non- q u ita m drugs. T he S t at e cou ches i t s ar gu m ent as fol l ow s: 1. T he t r i al cour ter r ed i n hol di ng t he St at e t o a hei ght ened pl eadi ng s t andar d based on a pr evi ous s ett l ementagr eementw hi ch s houl d not have be en cons i der ed atthe mot i on t o di s m i s s s t age.

### 8

2. T he tr i al court err ed i n f i ndi ng the 2001 s ett l eme nt agr eem ent barr ed th e S ta te ’s c la im s fo r d ru g s n o t s u b je c t to th e re le a s e . B ayer cou ches i t s ar gu m ent as fol l ow s: 1. T he St at e r el eas ed any pr es ett l em ent c l ai m s conce rni ng the quitam d ru g s a s p a rt o f i ts 2 0 0 1 S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t w ith B a y e r. 2. T he St at e has no vi abl e cl ai m s r el at ed t o the pos t - s ett l ementper i od f or any B ayer produ ct s. 3
. T he f

i r s tamended compl ai nt al l eges n o vi abl e cl ai m s as t o t he pr es ett l ementper i od f

ornon- q u ita m D ru g s . ¶ 1 5
. T h is c a se tu rn s o n th e p ro p rie ty o f th e d ism iss a l o f th e S tate ’s co m p lain t p u rsu a n t to R ul es 12( b) ( 6) and 9( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e; ther ef

or e thi s C our tneed
o n ly a d d re s s w h e th e r th e S tate fa iled to p lea d fra u d w ith th e sp e c ificity re q u ire d b y R u le 9 (b), an d w h ethe r dism issal pu rsua n t t o R u le 12 (b)(6 ) w as p rop er. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 1 6
. “ In re v iew in g th e g ra n t o f a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r fa ilu re to sta te a cla im , the a p p e llate
courtco nd ucts a de novo r evi ew . ” W e b b v. D eS o to Co u n ty , 84 3 S o. 2d 68 2, 68 4 (M i ss. 2003) ( ci t i ng L o w e v . L o w n des C o u n ty B ldg. In sp ec tio n D ep ’t , 76 0 S o. 2d 71 1, 71 2 (M i ss. 2 0 0 0 )). A N A L Y S IS ( I ) W hetherthe Stat e f

ai l ed t o pl ead f

r aud w i th the s

peci f i ci t y r equi r ed by Rul e 9(

b) of the Mississi

pp iR ules of C i vi lP rocedu re . ¶1 7. R ul e 9( b) of

t he M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s o f Ci vi l Pr ocedur e s et s f or t h t he pl eadi ng
r equi r ement s w hen f

r aud i s al l eged. Itr eads , i n r el evantpart , “[ i ] n al l averm ent s of f r aud or
m is ta k e , th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s c o n s titu tin g fr a u d o r m is ta k e sh a ll b e s ta te d w ith p a rt ic u la ri ty .”

### 9

M .R .C .P . 9 (b ). If a p lain tiff’s c o m p lain t d o e s n o t co m p ly w ith th e p a rticu lar ity re q u ire m e n ts
o f R u le 9 (b ), “th e c o m p lain t sh o u ld n o t su rv iv e a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim underR ul e 12( b) ( 6)
. ” State I ndus. , I nc. v. Hodges , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶18. I n Alle n v. Mac Tool s, I nc . , 671 So. 2d 636 ( M i s s . 1996) , thi s C our t expounded on R u le 9 (b ), n o tin g th a t “[f]ra u d w ill n o t b e inf e rre d o r p re su m e d a n d m a y n o t b e c h a rg e d in g e n e ra l term s. T h e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e alle g e d fra u d su c h as the ti m e , p lac e an d c o n ten ts of any f al s e r epr es ent at i ons orconductm us tbe s t at ed. ” I d . at6 42 (quot i ng B r abham v. B rabham , 483 So. 2d 341, 342 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. T he C our ti n Mac T oo l s r e l i ed upon t he
e le m e n ts o f f

ra u d to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e p la in tif f’ s c o m p la in t a d e q u a te ly p le d fr a u d
. I d. T h e se e lem e n ts a re : (1) a rep rese n tat ion ; (2 ) its falsi ty; ( 3 ) i ts m aterial ity ; ( 4 ) th e sp ea k er’s know l edge of

i t s f al s i ty ori gnor ance of

i t s truth; ( 5) the s peake r ’ s i nt entthat the r epr es ent at i on s houl d be ac t ed upon by the hea r erand i n the manner r eas on a bl y c on t e mpl a t e d; ( 6) the h e a r e r ’ s i gn or a nc e o f i t s f a l s i ty; ( 7) t he h e a re r’ s r e lia n c e o n th e re p re se n tatio n ’s tru th ; (8 ) th e h e a re r’s rig h t to re ly th e re o n ; a n d (9 ) t h e h e a re r’ s c o n s e q u e n t a n d p ro x im a te in ju ry . I d . ( ci t i ng B e n so n v. H

a ll , 3 3 9 S o . 2 d 5 7 0 (M iss . 1 9 7 6 ); E dm o n d s v. D elta D em o cra t P u b l’ g Co. , 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 7 1 (M iss. 1 9 5 7 )). ¶19. A ppl yi ng thi s def i ni t i on of f

r aud t o t he case at bar, the St at e’ s amended compl ai nt al l eges thatB ayer“ca us ed f al s e A ver age W hol es al e Pr i ces f oreac h of

the l i s t ed pharm ace ut i cal s t o enterthe s tr eam of comm er ce know i ng thatthey w oul d be us ed by M iss iss ip p i as th e p rin c ip a l m e a n s o f e s tim a tin g th e a c q u isitio n c o st o f p h a rm a c e u tica ls di s pens ed t o benef

i ci ar i es of

the M edi cai d pr ogram , causi ng M i ssi ssi pp i t o o verpay [ B ayer’ s] cust om ers . ” Thi s al l egat i on al one as s ert s a know i ng, m at er i al , and f al s e r epr es ent at i on by

### 10

B ay er w ith th e p u rpo se o f dec eivin g th e S tat e, an d th at th e S tat e’s reli an ce on B ay er’s
r epr es ent at i on pr oxi m at el y caus ed the St at e’ s i nj ury. Y et , t he St at e w entfurthert o say i n t he
a m e n d e d c o m p lain t th a t: E a c h d e fe n d a n t re p o rte d d ir e c tly , o r c a u se d to b e re p o rte d A W P s fo r th e ir pr oduct s on a per i odi c and c ont i nui ng basi s forpubl i cat i on and di s s emi nat i on t o M i s s i s s i ppi
. E ach de f endant[ w hi ch i ncl udes the B ayerdef endant s ] knew thatthe A W P i nf

or m at i on w hi ch they pr ovi ded and caus ed t o be r eport ed w as f al s e. E ach def

endantmi s r epr es ent ed the pr i ci ng i nf or m at i on w i th the i nt ent o f in d u c in g M iss iss ip p i to re ly o n th e f a ls e in fo rm a tio n in re im b u rsin g its cus t om er s , the M edi cai d pr ovi der s . M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s M edi cai d pr ogr am r eas onabl y r el i ed on the f al s e A ver age W hol es al e Pr i ces t o rei m bu r s e the pr ovi der s . E ach de f

endant ’ s m i sr epr es ent at i on ar e [ s i c] cont i nui ng, as they r egul ar l y and per i odi cal l y cont i nue t o i s s ue, c aus e t o be i s s ued, and mai nt ai n, false an d infl ated A v e ra g e W h o lesale P ri ce s for p u b li ca ti o n b y the in d u stry r eport i ng s ervi ces . A s a resul tof eac h def

endant ’ s f

r audul entconduct , the St at e has been damaged by overpayi ng f oreac h def

endant ’ s pharm ace ut i cal p ro d u c ts lis te d in th e a tta c h e d E x h ib it A
. ¶20. T he St at e’ s amended compl ai nt m eet s the s peci f i ci ty r equi r ement s of R ul e 9( b) , and B a y e r d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t w ith o u t th e se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t, th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w o u ld h a v e b e e n p led su ffic ien tly a g a in st th e n a m e d B a y e r d e fe n d a n ts , as it w a s fo r e a c h a n d a ll of the otherde f

endant s . T he ques t i on, then, i s w hetherthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n consi der i ng th e 2 0 0 1 S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e S tate a n d B a y e r w h e n ru lin g o n B a y e r’s R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s fo r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a y b e g ra n te d
. ( II ) W hether dism issalpu rsuant to R ule 12( b)( 6) w as prop er. ¶21. “W hen cons i der i ng a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , t he al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntm us tbe t aken
as true and the mot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed unl es s i ta ppear s be yond r eas onabl e doubtthat the pl ai nt i f

f w i l l be una bl e t o pr ove any s etof f act s i n s up po rtof her cl ai m . ” How ar d v. E s tate of

H ar perex r el

. H ar per , 947 So. 2d 8 54 , 8 56 (M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng L i ggans v.

### 11

Co a h o m a S h eriff’s D ep ’t , 823 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (M i s s . 2002))
. “Thi s C our tm us tf i nd t hat there is no set o f fac ts th at w o u ld e n ti tl e a d efe n d an t t o reli ef u n d er the law in o rde r t o affirm
an or dergr ant i ng the di s m i s s al of a cl ai m on a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. ” W ilb o u rn v. E q u ita b le L i fe A ssuran ce Soc. , 998 So. 2d 430, 435 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng L o w e v. L o w n de s C o u n ty B ldg. In sp ec tio n D ep ’t , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 )). A R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n to di s m i s s t es t s the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

a com pl ai nt , and an i nqui ry as t o t he l egal s uf f i ci ency is “ e s s e n tia lly lim ite d to th e c o n te n t o f t h e c o m p la in t.” T .M . v. N o b litt , 6 50 So
. 2d 1340, 1345- 46 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng Jacks on v. P r ocuni er , 7 8 9 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 0 9 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 6 )). T hi s C our thas gone f

ur ther , hol di ng t hatR ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i ons “ar e deci ded on t he f ace of the pl eadi ngs al one. ” H ar t f or d Cas . I

ns. , Co. v. H

al liburton Co. , 826 So. 2d 1206, 1211 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). M o re o v e r, M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b ) p ro v id e s in p a rt: I f , on a mot i on t o di sm i ss f or fa i l ur e of

the pl eadi ng t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef

can be gr ant ed, mat t er s out s i de the pl eadi ng ar e pr es ent ed t o and n o t ex clud ed by th e co u rt , th e m o ti o n sha ll be trea ted a s o n e fo r su m m ary j udgm entand di s pos ed of as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 56, and al l part i es shal l be gi ven r eas onabl e oppor tuni ty t o pre s ental l m at er i al m ade pert i nentt o such a mot i on b y R u le 5 6 [.] M .R .C .P . 1 2 (b )( 7 ). ¶22. N otw i ths t andi ng thi s Court ’ s l ongs t andi ng a ppl i cat i on of Rul e 12( b) , B ayerr el i es on Se nne tt v. U nite d State s Fi de lit

y and G uar ant

y Com pa ny , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 2 0 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ),
a ss e rtin g th a t a tria l c o u rt m a y c o n sid e r m a tters o u tsid e th e p lea d in g s w h e n ru lin g o n a R u le 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. I n S e n n e tt , the cor e i s s ue w as w hetherthe tr i al c our tha d err ed i n gr ant i ng a di s m i s s al pur s uantt o t he def endant ’ s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on af t ercons i der i ng an i ns ur ance p o lic y th a t w a s a tta c h e d to th e d e fe n d a n t’ s m o tio n . Id
. at209. T hi s C our tj oi ned the r anks

### 12

of seve r a l f

e de r a l c ou r t s of

a pp e a l i n h ol di ng tha t , i n r a r e c i r c ums t a nc e s , a tr i a l c ou r tmay
cons i de rdo c umen t s a t t a c he d t o a de f e nd a nt ’ s Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) mot i on t o d i s mi s s w i thout
convert i ng the mot i on t o di s m i s s t o a R ul e 56 mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , as l ong as the “pl ai nt i f f has actual not i ce of

al l of the i nf or m at i on i n the m ov ant’ s paper s and has r el i ed
u p o n th e s e d o c u m e n ts in fr a m in g th e c o m p la in t.” I d. ( quot i ng Cor te c I

ndus . v. Sum Hol

ding L. P. , 949 F. 2d 42, 48 ( 2d C i r . 1991) )
. T he C our tnot ed thata pr i m ary purpos e f orl i m i t i ng the rev iew o f a R u le 1 2 (b)(6 ) m o ti o n to the fac e o f th e c o m p lai n t i s tha t con side ri n g m att ers out s i de the pl eadi ngs m i ghtdepr i ve the pl ai nt i f f s of adequa t e not i ce of

an af f i r m at i ve def ens e, and thati f

a pl ai nt i f

f r el i es upon the extr i ns i c document s i n f r ami ng hi s orher compl ai nt , the conc ern f oradequa t e not i ce i s “l ar gel y di s s i pat ed. ” Id
. ¶2 3. U l t i m at e l y, the Cour t he l d tha t , be c a us e the thi r d- pa r ty c ompl a i nt w a s “ c e ntr a l a nd
n ec essa ry to the P lai n ti ff’ s ca u se o f ac ti o n , ” an d b ec au se th e term s o f th e p o li cy w ere “c lear, p lain , an d u n a m b ig u o u s,” th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in c o n sid e rin g it w h e n ru lin g o n th e R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n w ith o u t c o n v e r ti n g t h e m o tio n to a m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I d. at 2 1 1
. ¶24. H ow ever , r atherthan adhe r i ng t o the r eas oni ng i n S e n n e tt , th is C o u rt h a s a ffirm e d its
a lleg ian c e to th e ru le lim iti n g re v iew o f a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n to th e fa c e o f th e c o m p lain t. I n W il bo u rn , 9 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 3 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ), th e trial ju d g e g ra n ted th e d e fe n d a n t’s R u le 1 2 (b)(6 ) m o ti o n aft er co n side ri n g th e effec t o f a w h o le-l if e insu ran ce po li cy o n the p lai n ti ff’ s
co m p lai n t. U p o n rev iew , this C o u rth eld th at R u le 1 2 (b) ex p ressly n o tes tha t w h en “m att ers
o u tsi d e the p lead ing are p rese n ted . .
. the m o ti o n sh all b e treated as o n e fo r sum m ary j udgm entand di s pos ed of as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 56. ” I d . (qu o ti n g M
. R
. C
. P
. 1 2 (b)). T h e C o u rt

### 13

ul t i m at el y vaca t ed the or derof di s m i s s al , not i ng t hatt he t r i al j udge had err ed i n cons i der i ng
m att er s out s i de the pl eadi ngs w i thoutconvert i ng the R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on i nt o a R ul e 56
m oti on f ors um m ary j udgm enta nd f ai l i ng t o gi ve the nonm ovant , a tmi ni m um , t en days’
n o tic e o f a h e a ri n g fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Id
. at436. Si m i l ar l y, i n Sulli van v. Tullos , 19 So. 3d 1271 ( M i s s . 2009) , t hi s C our thel d thatf ai l ur e t o g i ve a p arty t en days ’ not i ce a f t er a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on has been c onvert ed i nt o a R ul e 56 m ot i on w i l l re s ul ti n a re ver s al of th e ju d g m e n t b y th is C o u rt . I d. a t 1 2 7 6
. ¶25. H ere , as i n W

il bo u rn and Tullos , the tr i a l c our tcons i der ed mat t er s out s i de t he pl eadi ngs w hen i tt oo k i nto accountthe 2001 Sett l ementA gr eement . H avi ng done s o, t he tr i al courtw as r equi r ed t o convertB ayer ’ s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on i nt o a R ul e 56 mot i on f or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e trial c o u rt fa iled to d o so , d e p riv in g th e S tate
o f a c tu a l n o tice o f its in ten t to ru le o n th e m a tter a s a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h is C our t ’ s r ece nti nt erpr et at i on of R ul e 12( b) ( 6) and R ul e 9( b) i n W il bo u rn and Tullos and a p la in re a d in g o f R u le 1 2 (b ) e s ta b lis h th is a s e rr o r. CO NC L US I ON ¶26. T he tr i al c our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the St at e’ s cl ai m s r egar di ng pr es ett l ementnon- quitam drugs i s revers ed, and thi s cas e i s r emanded t o the C hance ry C our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof

H i nds C ounty f

orpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 2 7
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. CARL S ON AND GRAVE S , P. J J . , RANDOLP H, LAM AR, CHANDLE R AND PI ERCE J J . , CO NCU R. W ALLER, C. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y D I C K I N SO N , J. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND I N RESULT:

### 14

¶ 2 8
. I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity th a t th e S tate ’s a m e n d e d c o m p lain t sa tisfie s th e sp e c ificity req u ir em en ts of R u le 9(b ). I al so ag ree th at th e tr ial co u rterred b y n o t con v erti n g B ay er’s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o a R ul e 56 mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , butf or d if feren t r ea so n s. C o n v ersion to su m m ary jud g m en t i s n o t r eq u ir ed ev ery ti m e a tr ial co u rt
c o n s id e rs d o c u m e n ts a tta c h e d to a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n . Sennett v. U . S. Fid. & G uar. Co. [“ U S F & G ” ], 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 2 0 6 ( M is s . 2 0 0 0 ). I n m y v ie w , S e n n e tt is g o o d law if th e fa c ts
w arr ant . T hey do nother e, how ever , beca us e the tr i al courtcons i der ed mat t er s out s i de of b o th th e p le a d in g s a n d th e a tta c h e d d o c u m e n ts

— n a m e ly , th e p re s e ttle m e n t in v e s tig a tio n . I
w o u ld re v e rs e a n d re m a n d o n th o s e g ro u n d s ; a n d th e re fo re , I c o n c u r i n p a rt a n d in re s u lt. ¶29. I n S e n n e tt , thi s C our tr ecogni zed a n exce pt i on t o the gene r al rul e thata R ul e 12( b) ( 6)
m ot i on m us tbe convert ed i nt o a R ul e 56 m ot i on i f t he tr i al courtcons i der s m att er s out s i de th e p le a d in g s . S e n n e tt , 757 So. 2d at209- 10. I n thatcas e, the Sennett s ’ compl ai ntal l eged thatU SF& G and Fi del i ty w er e obl i gat ed underthe t erm s of “an i ns ur ance pol i cy” t o def end
o r in d e m n ify the S e n n e tts ag a in st a w ro n g fu l-d e a th su it. I d . a t 2 0 8 . U S F & G a n d F id e lity fi le d a m o tio n to d is m is s a n d a tta c h e d c o p ie s o f tw o in s u ra n c e p o lic ie s to th e irm o tio n . I d. T he tr i al courtcons i der ed t he ple adi ngs and the t erm s of the tw o pol i ci es i n di s m i s s i ng U S F & G a n d F id e lity
. I d. at209. W e hel d thatconver s i on t o s um m ary j udgm entw as
unnece s s ary beca us e: ( 1) the Sennett s ’ com pl ai ntr ef err ed t o the pol i ci es ; ( 2) the pol i ci es
w er e ce ntr al and neces s ary t o t hei rcaus e of act i on; and ( 3) U SF& G and Fi del i ty att ache d t he
e n tir e p o lic ie s to th e irm o tio n to d is m is s . I d. at 210 ( quot i ng Sheppard v. T exas D ep’ t

of T r ansp. , 1 5 8 F .R .D . 5 9 2 , 5 9 6 (E .D . T e x . 1 9 9 4 ))
.

### Sen nett, 75 7 S o. 2 dat 20 9 n .1; se e al so 5A Charle s Al an Wright & Arthur R. 3 

### Miller, Fede ral

Prac tice& Proc edure: Civ il 3d § 1 32 7, at 4 43 -47 (20 04 ). 15 ¶30. A l t ho ug h the m aj ori t y fr am es S e n n e tt a s a n a be rr a t i on w i thi n o ur l ongs t andi ng ju risp ru d e n c e , it is s o u n d law w h e re th e fa c ts w a rra n t. T h e n e c e ss ity o f c o n v e rtin g a R u le 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o a R ul e 56 mot i on di s s i pat es w her e a pl ai nt i f f has adequa t e, actual not i ce of al l the i nf

or m at i on i n the movant ’ s paper s and r el i es on thati nf or m at i on i n f

r ami ng the
c o m p la in t. S e n n e tt , 757 So. 2d at210 ( ci t i ng Cor te c I ndus . v. Su m Ho ldingL. P. , 949 F. 2d 4 2 , 4 8 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ))
. S e n n e tt ’s e x c e p tio n a lso is c o m p a tib le w ith o u r ru le s o f c iv il pr ocedur e. R ul e 10( c) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e s t at es that“[ a] copy of any
w ri t t en instrum ent w hich i s an exh i bitto a p l eading i s a partthereof f or al l pu rposes. ” M i ss. R
. Ci v. P. 10( c)
. T he f

eder al c ount erpartt o M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s Rul e 10( c) i s the bas i s f ora bevy of f eder al court s al l ow i ng cons i der at i on of doc um ent s a t t ache d t o a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. 3 5 A C h a rl e s A la n W ri g h t & A rt h u r R . M ille r, Feder alP r act i ce & P r ocedur e: C i vi l3d § 1327,
a t 4 4 3 -4 4 (2 0 0 4 ). ¶31. A dm i t t edl y, as poi nt ed outby the maj or i ty, our r ece ntdeci s i ons i n Sulli van v. Tullos , 19 S o. 3d 1271 (M i s s . 2009) , and W ill b o u rn v. E q u ita b le L ife A ss u ra n c e S o c iety , 998 So. 2 d 43 0 (M iss. 20 0 8 ), i n d icate th at co n v ersion t o sum m ary j u d g m en t is n ec ess a ry w h ere
m att er s out s i de the pl eadi ng ar e cons i der ed. Y et , nei t her of thos e ca s es di s cus s ed S e n n e tt
o r i ts im p lic a tio n s . Sulli van , 1 9 S o . 3 d 1 2 7 1 ; W il l bo u rn , 9 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 3 0
. ¶ 3 2
. S e n n e tt ’ s e xcept i on w oul d a ppl y i n thi s c as e butf orone i m por t antdi s t i nct i on. T he St at e’ s amended compl ai ntref err ed t o the 2001 Sett l ementA gr eement . T hatSet t l ement A gr eementw as centr al and neces sar y t o the St at e’ s caus e of act i on beca us e i tcontr ol l ed

### 16

w hi ch cl ai m s w er e ac t i onabl e. Fur therm or e, B ayera t t ache d the 2001 Set t l ementA gr eement t o i t s mot i on t o di s m i s s . H ad the tr i al courtcons i der ed onl y the pl eadi ngs and the att ache d d o cu m en ts, w h ich in c lu d ed the 2 0 0 1 S ett lem en t A g ree m en t, co n v ersion to su m m ary ju d g m e n t w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n re q u ir e d
. See S e n n e tt , 757 So. 2d at209-10. B uther e, unl i ke S e n n e tt , th e tria l c o u rt lo o k e d b e y o n d th e fa c e o f th e p lea d in g s a n d th e a ttac h e d d o c u m e n ts by cons i der i ng f

act s s urr oundi ng the pr es ett l ementi nves t i gat i on. See id. a t 2 0 9
. ¶33
. A s expl ai ned bel ow , the com prehen si ven ess of the p res et t l em ent i nvest i gat i on f orm ed the ce ntr al bas i s fort he t r i al cour t ’ s di s m i s s al
. In i t s R eport , R ecomm endat i on and O r derN o. 2, the tr i al c our ts t at ed i t“ trus t ed” thatthe pr es ett l ementi nves t i gat i on encompas s ed quitam and non- qui tam d ru g s a lik e . It th u s re q u ire d th e S tate to p lea d a ro u n d th a t in v e stig a tio n in any l at ercompl ai nt . T he St at e had t o s how thatthe i nves t i gat i on l eadi ng u p t o the 2001 S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t w a s in a d e q u a te . [ T ] he [ 2001] s ett l ementw as pr ece ded by a br oad bas ed i nves t i gat i on of B ayer l ed by the f

eder al governm entand j oi ned b y 47 st at es . H ad conc erns ar i s en a b o u t p ri c e r e p o rt in g o n p ro d u c ts o th e r t h a n th e s ix Q u i T a m D ru g s , w e trust thatthos e conc erns w oul d h ave been addr es s ed i n the cour s e of the i nves t i gat i on and s ett l em ent . I n any eve nt , abs entany s peci f i c al l egat i on of wr o n g d o i n g a s t o No n - Qu i T a m Dru g s , we f i n d n o b a s i s f

o rth e S t a t e ’ s c l a i ms re la tin g to th e p re -s e ttle m e n t p e ri o d to p ro c e e d a t th is p o in t. If a t a la terda te the State has evi dence the com pr ehens i ve i nves t igat i on pr evi ous l y m ade agai ns tB ayerthatr es ul t ed i n the s et t l em ent s hould hav e i ncl uded otherdr ugs f o rth e t i me p r i o rt o 2 0 0 1 , th e S ta t e ma y b r i n ga n e w a c t i o n a tth a tt i me . (E m p h asis ad d ed
. ) ¶34. In r espons e t o Repor t , Recom m endat i on a nd O r derN o. 2, the S t at e fi l ed it s fi rs t amended compl ai nt , i n w hi ch i tatt empt ed t o di s t i ngui s h the ea r l i er , pr es ett l ement i nves t i gat i on. I tal l eged t hatpart i cul ari nves t i gat i on had “f ocus ed upon pr oduct s and

### 17

p ra c tic e s w h e re s p re a d a n d s p re a d m a rk e tin g te c h n iq u e s w e r e m o re e x tr e m e o r f la g ra n t . .

. . ” The St at e cont ended thatthe s ubj ects ui ti s br oader : I ta t t acks an “i ndus try pr act i ce” of in tr o d u c in g a n A v e ra g e W h o le s a le P ri c e in fl a te d b y a m in im u m o f s e v e n te e n p e rc e n t. ¶ 3 5
. T h e tria l c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e S tate h a d fa iled to s tate a c laim fo r w h ich re lief c o u ld be gr ant ed. I tmai nt ai ned that“ i ti s l ogi cal t o as s um e” thatconce rns aboutnon- qui tam drugs
w oul d ha ve been addr es s ed i n the cour s e of the pr es ett l ementi nves t i gat i on. C ons equent l y, i tdi s m i s s ed the ca s e, concl udi ng thatthe St at e had f ai l ed t o make a ny s peci f i c al l egat i on t hat th e s e ttle m e n t a n d in v e s tig a tio n le a d in g u p to it w e re in a d e q u a te . ¶ 3 6
. T h e c o m p re h e n siv e n e ss o f th e p re se ttl e m e n t in v e stig a tio n is a q u e stio n o f fa c t th a t is
n o t ap p a re n t fro m th e p lea d in g s o r th e a ttac h e d d o c u m e n tatio n . T h e tr ia l co u rt sim p ly
assum ed i t s ow n fact s abo ut that i nv est i gati on and requi red the S t at e t o p l ead arou nd t ho se
a ss u m p tio n s. M o re im p o rta n tly , th e p re se ttl e m e n t in v e stig a tio n u lti m a tely is im m a ter ial to
w hetherthe St at e has as s ert ed a l egal l y r ecogni zabl e cl ai m forr el i ef
. E ven i f

t he pr es ett l ementi nves t i gat i on encompas s ed eve ry drug m anuf act ur ed by B ayer , thatal one
w oul d notba ra s ubs equentcl ai m . T he 2001 Sett l ementA gr eementi s the onl y documentt hat pr ecl udes any l at ercl ai m s , and i tre l eas es onl y thos e cl ai m s conce rni ng q u ita m drugs . T he p re s e ttle m e n t in v e s tig a tio n h a d n o b e a ri n g a t th e 1 2 (b )( 6 ) s ta g e . ¶3 7. T he t r i al cour t ’ s cons i der at i on of t he pr es et t l ement i nves t i gat i on nec e s s i t a t ed
con versi on t o sum m ary j ud gm ent. I w ou l d reverse and rem and on tho se groun ds. DI CKI NS ON, J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.