Valsartan Cancer Lawsuit – MDL 2875

Valsartan is a common drug for treating high blood pressure and heart disease. Valsartan was sold under the brand name Diovan, manufactured safely by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. for decades. The valsartan lawsuits do not cover claims related to the name brand Diovan. Around 2012, many generic drug manufacturers, such as Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Hetero Drugs Limited; Aurobindo Pharma Limited; Mylan; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries began selling valsartan after it went off patent. The active ingredient for generic valsartan was primarily manufactured in China and India. The generic drug companies utilized a cheap manufacturing process that resulted in the formation of potent genotoxic carcinogens called nitrosamines. The valsartan lawsuits allege that the two most common nitrosamines in the contaminated valsartan are NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) and NDEA (N-nitrosodimethylamine). Companies and the FDA began recalling contaminated valsartan and losartan in July of 2018. However, many individuals who ingested contaminated valsartan will not develop cancer for years after exposure. As of June 2024, there are approximately 1,500 valsartan cancer lawsuits on file in MDL 2875.

Valsartan MDL 2875 Court Appointed Leadership

The attorneys at Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn make up a large portion of the court-appointed leadership in the valsartan litigation. Daniel Nigh is co-lead counsel and a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. Marlene Goldenberg is on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and discovery committee. Brett Vaughn is also on the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee and is co-chair of the science and expert committee. And Ashleigh Raso is on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. The valsartan attorneys at NGRV have extensive experience in MDL 2875. No law firm in the United States has as many attorneys appointed by the court to the valsartan leadership as Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn! The court noted in CMO 34 that Co-lead counsel for the valsartan litigation, Daniel Nigh, had formed a law firm with Executive Committee members Marlene Goldenberg and Brett Vaughn, and Steering Committee member Ashleigh Raso. 

Valsartan Lawsuit MDL 2875 Updates

July 2024 – Valsartan Trial in November?

On July 23, 2024, Judge Bumb held an all-day in-person case management conference on a wide variety of issues. During the case management conference, Judge Bumb ruled on a large number of motions in limine (what can or can’t be said/argued during the valsartan trial). It was confirmed that the first valsartan trial will take place in November of 2024, with a jury to be selected on October 30, 2024. The next in-person valsartan case management conference is scheduled for August 31, 2024.

On July 11, 2024, Judge Bumb entered the following text order: “In order to assist the parties in moving these matters forward, and in preparation for the conference scheduled July 23, 2024, the Court makes the following observations: it has no intention of revisiting Judge Kugler’s well-reasoned decision to proceed with the previously-envisioned TPP class trial. Statements such as spending “time and resources on a lengthy and complicated trial that is all but certain to end in reversible error”, Docket No. 2770, at 44, are simply not helpful. The parties should be prepared to discuss a November 2024 trial date. To the extent time permits, the parties should be prepared to address the in limine motions (the Court has already advised that it will address other motions). Moreover, there appears to be a disconnect between the parties on the significance of the Mansouri study. The parties shall be prepared to address this issue. To the extent Defendants contend “the epidemiological literature has continued to evolve in Defendants’ favor”, Defendants have cited no further studies. They should be prepared to address this statement to the Court.”

On July 9, 2024, Judge Bumb entered an order extending the June 30, 2024 deadline to finalize all Hetero valsartan settlement-related agreements. Judge Bumb granted the following extensions related to the Hetero valsartan settlement:

• July 15, 2024 to finalize the valsartan economic loss settlement documents.
• July 22, 2024 to finalize the valsartan personal injury settlement documents.
• September 30, 2024 to finalize the valsartan medical monitoring settlement documents.

June 2024 – Sanctions & Settlements

Valsartan Settlements?

The valsartan attorneys at Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn have had lots of inquiries from attorneys nationwide after the Court entered the following on the docket “ORDER directing the parties to finalize the terms of the valsartan settlement for all three classes of plaintiffs by 06/30/2024.” The valsartan settlement order which reads, “The court having held an oral hearing on 31 May 2024 in this Multi District Litigation (“MDL”) in response to the parties’ joint letter request which expressed an intent to file in the near future a motion for preliminary approval of the valsartan economic loss settlement, the court hereby orders:

1. By 30 June 2024, the parties shall finalize the terms of the valsartan settlement for all three classes of plaintiffs: personal injury, economic loss, and medical monitoring;
2. Having already contracted and worked with Magistrate Judge (ret.) Joel Schneider to negotiate the current valsartan settlement term sheet, the parties shall, by ninety (90) days from the date of this order, meet and confer in person with Magistrate Judge Schneider to continue settlement negotiations to resolve the losartan settlement impasse. Such in person settlement meeting shall include representatives from the Hetero Defendants who are authorized to finalize settlement terms; and
3. No motion for preliminary approval of any settlement involving the Hetero defendants shall be granted, unless Magistrate Judge Schneider attests to this Court of an irresolvable impasse to settlement.

 

However, what the valsartan settlement order doesn’t make clear to an outsider is that the entire valsartan settlement order only applies to a single defendant – Hetero. It is important to understand that Hetero primarily manufactured losartan, which was also recalled for being contaminated with carcinogens. In comparison to the other valsartan defendants, Hetero sold a small amount of contaminated valsartan. While some defendants sold valsartan with carcinogens in it for years, Hetero only sold contaminated valsartan for a couple of months. It is believed that less than 5% of the valsartan cancer lawsuits on file in MDL 2875 are against the defendant Hetero. Simply put, the majority of the valsartan litigation is not settling and our valsartan attorneys continue to push forward to the first valsartan trial.

Sanctions Against Valsartan Defendant

Years ago, the valsartan Plaintiff lawyers moved for sanctions (punishment) against the Chinese Defendant Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals (ZHP) for violating Court orders compelling the CEO of the company, Mr. Chen for deposition, and for not producing his custodial file and other relevant documents. The Court recently entered valsartan special master order (SMO) #98, granting sanctions against ZHP for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The Order noted that “ZHP’s conduct in this proceeding reflects that ZHP seeks to benefit from the United States when it suits it but is unwilling to accept the obligations of participation in the United States proceedings. Judge Kugler warned ZHP this conduct was unacceptable in his opinion affirming Special Master Order No. 35 and that continued disregard for the authority of an American court to require discovery in defiance of the PRC laws would lead to Rule 37 Sanctions.

The valsartan Plaintiff attorneys primarily wanted to depose Mr. Chen because of a 2017 email with numerous high-level ZHP employees noted that their valsartan was contaminated with NDMA and urged the leadership to address the problem immediately. This 2017 email is contrary to the valsartan defendant’s position that they were unaware of the valsartan contamination until the middle of 2018. The valsartan Plaintiff lawyers believe that the documents ZHP refuses to produce would show that ZHP knew of the valsartan contamination long before 2017 even. 

The Court noted that “an appropriate sanction must have both substantive and financial consequences to reflect the seriousness of ZHP’s discovery defalcations.” The Court then ordered the valsartan Plaintiff lawyers to craft an adverse inference instruction for the Judge to read to the jury at any future valsartan-related trials. The Court also noted that “a substantial monetary penalty is warranted” and ordered the valsartan lawyers to brief how much they believe the sanctions should be. Quickly thereafter, the valsartan defendants appealed the order for sanctions.

May 2024 – New Judge Appointed to Valsartan MDL 2875

In early May of 2024, it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Robert Kugler, who has presided over the valsartan lawsuits since their inception in 2018, would be retiring at the end of the month.  It was then announced that the Chief Judge for the United States District for the District of New Jersey, Judge Renee Bumb, would be taking over the valsartan lawsuits that makeup MDL 2875. The first valsartan case management conference with Judge Bumb is scheduled in July of 2024. Our valsartan attorneys are still hopeful that the first valsartan trial will get scheduled for later this year.

March 2024 – Valsartan Trial Delayed

The attorneys at Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn had been preparing non-stop for the first valsartan trial, which was scheduled to start the week of March 18, 2024. The day before our valsartan attorneys were scheduled to leave for over a month to New Jersey for the first valsartan trial, the trial was postponed by the court due to an illness. The court has not yet set a date for the first valsartan trial to start, and coordinating the schedules of the court, numerous plaintiff attorneys, experts, and defendants from around the world, is no small task. 

Our valsartan attorneys are hopeful that this will only be a short delay in the first valsartan trial and that this will give the valsartan court more time to make pre-trial rulings. At the moment, there are over 100 pending valsartan pre-trial motions, including motions in limine, summary judgment, and appeals on expert admissibility. 

Our valsartan attorneys were ready to go to trial, but are utilizing the trial delay to further refine the valsartan trial strategy. We will update this page when we learn when the first valsartan trial is scheduled.

January 2024 -Valsartan Expert Update

January 2024 was a big month for the valsartan litigation with the judge ruling on what experts would be allowed at the first valsartan trial and what they would be allowed to testify about. Many of the valsartan defendants have attempted to argue that it was “industry standard” to not test their valsartan for carcinogens. However, in the order, the court noted that it “views this ‘industry standard’ premise as bordering on a legal opinion as to the responsibility of the API and finished dose manufacturers.” Importantly, the court found that Dr. Afnan, the defenses’ regulatory expert, can NOT opine that the contaminated valsartan was not adulterated. Conversely, plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Plunkett and Dr. Najafi are both allowed to opine that the contaminated valsartan was adulterated. 

Defendants’ expert pharmacist, Dr. Bottorff, is also not allowed to give the following opinions at the valsartan trial:

• Oral doses at the levels detected in the generic valsartan at issue in this litigation are metabolized in the liver almost completely, preventing exposure to other tissues and organs.
• NDMA/NDEA in valsartan will not reach systemic circulation.
• DNA repair mechanisms in humans can be as much as 10 times higher than in rats, indicating a more active DNA repair in humans compared to rats.

Furthermore, Dr. Bottorff is also precluded from “implying, suggesting, hinting, or opining that contaminated valsartan-containing drugs bear reduced liability because they have the same or substantially similar clinical action or pharmacokinetics in the human body because Bottorff is not a qualified expert on the liability of contaminated drugs.”

Our valsartan attorneys view the court’s decisions on the valsartan experts to be extremely favorable. The valsartan defendants apparently do not view the court’s ruling on the valsartan experts as favorable, as they have appealed the court’s decision. The valsartan defendant’s motion to appeal the court’s expert admissibility decision is currently pending.

The court’s entire order on the valsartan experts can be viewed here. 

December 2023 – Valsartan Recall Class Action Notice

In December of 2023, anyone who consumed contaminated valsartan should have received a valsartan class action notice in the mail. The notice was titled “Legal Notice of Consumer Economic Loss and Medical Monitoring Class Action.” This valsartan class action is for those who paid money for the contaminated valsartan to get their money back, and for those who took the contaminated valsartan and now need to be monitored for the development of cancer. The valsartan class action is an “Opt-Out” class action, meaning that you are automatically included in the valsartan class action. However, it is important to note that the class action does not cover those who took contaminated valsartan and then developed cancer. If you developed cancer after taking contaminated valsartan, you need to contact a valsartan attorney to file an individual valsartan cancer lawsuit. Contact one of our valsartan attorneys today at 202-792-7927 for a free consultation.

May 2023 – Valsartan Defendants Appeal Denied

On May 1, 2023, third circuit judges Patty Shwartz, Paul Matey and Peter Phipps denied the valsartan defendant’s petitions for permission to appeal and dismissed all pending motions. MDL 2875 will continue toward the first valsartan trial. 

February 2023 – Valsartan Expert Update

On February 8, 2023, Judge Kugler excluded numerous defense experts. Judge Kugler granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike new and altered valsartan general causation opinions of Michael Bottorff, PharmD, in particular the following opinions of Dr. Bottorff:

1. “Oral doses at the levels detected in the generic valsartan at issue in this litigation are metabolized in the liver almost completely, preventing exposure to other tissues and organs.”
2. “NDMA/NDEA in valsartan will not reach systemic circulation”
3. “DNA repair mechanisms in humans can be as much as 10 times higher than that in rats, indicating a more active DNA repair in humans compared to rats”

 

Judge Kugler also granted Plaintiff’s motion to preclude the valsartan class certification expert report of Jason Clevenger, PhD. Jason Clevenger is an employee of the company Exponent. Dr. Clevenger attempted to offer the following opinions regarding Aurobindo’s contaminated valsartan containing drugs:

1. There is “no evidence that the rate / extent of the bioavailability of contaminated valsartan differs from that of the reference listed drug (RLD).” Further, plaintiffs state, Dr. Clevenger opines that recalled Aurobindo VCD products remained bioequivalent even with low levels of NDEA or NDMA.
2. Using higher temperatures to make the Aurobindo finished drug product likely resulted in the volatilization of nitrosamines in the corresponding batches of the API. Dr. Clevenger opines this shows that Aurobindo finished drug product batches generally had lower nitrosamine levels than corresponding API batches.

Judge Kugler found that Dr. Clevenger’s opinions “rest on deficient scientific methodology”. Regarding opinion 1, it was explained that, “Dr. Clevenger’s one-eye-shut approach is not a scientifically valid methodology. Constituting neither proper scientific deduction, nor inductive research, nor testing to conclusion, nor full scientific literature review, Dr. Clevenger’s approach-to rely on an untested lack of evidence to aver the presence of a physical identicality-is sheer sophistry. And to the point, to opine that the absence of evidence demonstrates the presence of a physical property without checking other relevant information and data is a well-known error in logic and belies a reliable method.”

In regard to Dr. Clevenger’s second opinion, it was explained that Dr. Clevenger’s opinion relied solely, “on his interpretation of Aurobindo’s own, initial test results that show the manufacture of finished dose products at elevated temperatures reduced the concentration of nitrosamines, and particularly NDEA, in the finished dose when compared with the API by about 70%. These results were not replicated by a subsequent test done by Aurobindo or by a separate test done by the FDA. But, Dr. Clevenger’s methodology did not include a comparison of Aurobindo’s initial test results either with Aurobindo’s second results or with the FDA subsequent test results. For this reason, Dr. Clevenger’s opinion declaring lower nitrosamine levels in the relevant Aurobindo’s FD batches compared to those levels in Aurobindo’s relevant API batches is based on skewed results and not methodologically reliable.”

July 2022 – Valsartan Schedule

The valsartan court entered case management order #28, setting the following deadlines related to valsartan liability expert reports:

• September 16, 2022: Plaintiffs’ serve valsartan liability expert reports.
• October 18, 2022: Defendants’ serve liability expert reports.
• November 19, 2022: Completion of valsartan liability expert depositions.
• December 13, 2022: Daubert motions filed regarding liability experts.
• January 6, 2023: Daubert responses.
• January 20, 2023: Daubert replies.

May 2022 – Valsartan Settlement Counsel

Via case management order #25, the Court ordered the parties to appoint valsartan settlement counsel. The order read, “a fair and equitable way to advance settlement negotiations in this Multi-District Litigation[“MDL”] is to ask each party to nominate settlement counsel to represent it in MDL settlement negotiations conducted by the Settlement Special Masters: the Honorable (Ret.) Gregory M. Sleet, and the Honorable (Ret.) Lawrence F. Stengel“.

January 2021 – Valsartan Discovery Timeline

The valsartan court set the following deadlines in case management order #22:

• April 1, 2021: Complete first phase of fact discovery, including deposition of valsartan manufacturing defendants and at least 10 valsartan personal injury bellwether plaintiffs.
• May 3, 2021: Plaintiffs serve valsartan expert reports addressing general causation.
• June 1, 2021: Defendants serve valsartan expert reports addressing general causation.
• July 1, 2021: Complete depositions of plaintiff’s general causation experts.
• August 2, 2021: Complete depositions of defendant’s general causation experts. All valsartan bellwether depositions should have been completed by this date as well.
• August 31, 2021: File Daubert motions regarding general causation experts.
• October 1, 2021: Responses to Daubert motions.
• November 1, 2021: Replies to responses to Daubert motions.

November 2020 – Depositions in Light of Covid-19

The Court addressed depositions going forward in the fact of Covid-19 in case management order #20. The Court noted that all depositions in MDL 2875 could be noticed to take place remotely via Zoom. The Court also entered case management order #21, approving the request for production of documents (RFP) related to the following:

• Valsartan Medical Monitoring Class Action Plaintiff Class Representatives
• Valsartan Economic Loss Class Action Plaintiff Consumer Class Representative
• Valsartan Economic Loss Class Action Plaintiff Third-Party Payor Class Representative (MSPRC)
• Valsartan Economic Loss Class Action Plaintiff Third-Party Payor Class Representative (Main Automobile Dealers Association, Inc. Insurance Trust)

December 2019 – Valsartan Litigation Expanded

The JPML expanded MDL 2875 to include losartan and irbesartan personal injury lawsuits, which are in the same class of blood pressure medications as valsartan and were also recalled due to being contaminated with nitrosamines as well. Many of the generic valsartan manufacturers were also manufacturing irbesartan and losartan. Furthermore, many patients with a valsartan lawsuit filed also took contaminated losartan or irbesartan at some point. Some patients were transitioned from valsartan to losartan after the valsartan recall, as it was not yet known that losartan was also contaminated with deadly carcinogens.

October 2019 – Valsartan Plaintiff Fact Sheets

The Court approved the Plaintiff’s Fact Sheets for the respective classes of valsartan Plaintiffs as follows:

1. Valsartan Personal Injury Plaintiffs
2. Valsartan Medical Monitoring Class Representative Plaintiffs
3. Valsartan Economic Loss Plaintiffs

All plaintiffs with a valsartan lawsuit on file were ordered to have a Plaintiff’s Fact Sheet on file within sixty days of filing their Short Form Complaint. Furthermore, the valsartan defendants are allowed to bring Show Cause orders for valsartan plaintiffs that do not adequately complete their valsartan Plaintiff’s Fact Sheet.

September 2019 – Valsartan Short Form Complaint

The valsartan attorney’s Short Form Complaint (SFC) was approved via case management order #13. All future personal injury valsartan lawsuits transferred into MDL 2875 were ordered to file a Short Form Complaint (SFC) within 30 days of transfer. 

May 2019 – Valsartan Leadership

Case management order #6 was entered in the valsartan lawsuit MDL 2875, appointing leadership of the valsartan litigation. NGRV attorneys Daniel Nigh, Marlene Goldenberg, Brett Vaughn, and Ashleigh Raso were all appointed to valsartan leadership positions.

April 2019 – Valsartan Monthly Conferences

Case management order #2 was entered in MDL 2875, establishing monthly in-person valsartan status conferences with Judge Kugler and monthly follow-up conferences by telephone with the magistrate judge.

February 2019 – Valsartan MDL 2875 Formation

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) entered a transfer order consolidating all valsartan lawsuits filed in federal court into MDL 2875 in the District of New Jersey before the Honorable Robert Kugler. Many of the valsartan defendants have their U.S. headquarters in New Jersey. The JPML also noted that, “Judge Robert B. Kugler is an experienced transferee judge with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.” At the time of consolidation there were 30 valsartan related lawsuits on file, including 17 valsartan personal injury lawsuits and the remainder being putative class actions on behalf of consumers and third-party payors. Just a few days after the JPML created the valsartan lawsuit MDL 2875, Judge Kugler entered the first case management order (CMO) in MDL 2875. Judge Kugler set the first valsartan case management conference for all valsartan attorneys to be held on March 27, 2019.

2018 – Valsartan Recall

Starting in the summer of 2018, valsartan started to be recalled from the market due to being contaminated with cancer-causing agents. These recalls continued for approximately one year as additional lots of valsartan continued to be found contaminated with caner-causing agents, specifically NDMA and NDEA. The valsartan recall was also expanded to include the blood pressure medications losartan and irbesartan. Bookmark this page to stay up to date with developments related to the valsartan recall and resulting valsartan lawsuits. 

What is Valsartan?

Valsartan is the chemical name or generic name for Diovan, a common medication utilized to primarily treat high blood pressure (hypertension), heart failure, and even diabetic kidney disease. Valsartan belongs to a class of antihypertensives known as angiotensin II receptor blockers or ARBs. Valsartan primarily works by dilating the blood vessels, thereby decreasing blood pressure.

What Types of Cancers Can Contaminated Valsartan Cause?

The valsartan lawsuits allege that valsartan contaminated with nitrosamines can result in the formation of numerous types of cancer, even years after taking contaminated valsartan. The types of cancer supported in the valsartan lawsuit MDL 2875 include:

• Blood Cancer (including Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Multiple myeloma, and Leukemia
• Liver Cancer
• Colorectal/Colon/Rectal Cancer
• Intestinal Cancer
• Gastric/Stomach Cancer
• Lung Cancer
• Pancreatic Cancer
• Pharyngeal (throat)/Esophageal Cancer 
• Prostate Cancer
• Bladder Cancer

When patients have been exposed to a potent carcinogen, such as contaminated valsartan, cancer of numerous organs becomes more common. This is different than cancer metastasis, which is cancer moving from one organ to another (which contaminated valsartan also increases the risk of). Multisystem cancer is supportive of exposure to a carcinogenic agent. The valsartan lawyers at Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn work closely with the experts in the contaminated valsartan lawsuits and have already passed the general causation phase of the litigation (demonstrated to the Court that contaminated valsartan can cause the above cancers).

Who Are The Valsartan Defendants?

There are a large number of defendants involved in the valsartan litigation. The defendants in the valsartan litigation include every company in the supply chain from the time the contaminated active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) was manufactured to being sold to an individual consumer. Generally, the defendants fall into six distinct groups:

• Valsartan API Manufacturers: Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Huahai U.S., Inc.; Hetero Labs, Ltd.; Hetero Drugs, Limited; Hetero USA Inc.; Mylan Laboratories, Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
• Valsartan Finished Dose Manufacturers: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now part of Viatris); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. (now Allergan); Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.; Aurolife Pharma, LLC; Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Valsartan Finished Dose Distributors: Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC; Torrent Pharma, Inc.; Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Wholesalers of Valsartan: AmerisourceBergen Corporation (n/k/a Cencora, Inc.); Cardinal Health Inc.; McKesson Corporation
• Repackagers of Valsartan: AvKARE, Inc.; Major Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Pharmacies That Sold Contaminated Valsartan: Albertson’s LLC; CVS Pharmacy Inc.; Express Scripts, Inc.‘s affiliated pharmacy entities; Humana Pharmacy, Inc.; The Kroger Co.; OptumRx; Rite Aid Corporation; Walgreen Co.; Walmart, Inc.

How Did Valsartan Get Contaminated with NDMA and NDEA?

The valsartan lawsuits allege that NDMA is formed in part because nitrites are utilized in the valsartan manufacturing process. Furthermore, our valsartan attorneys assert that NDMA can also be present in recycled solvents, which some of the generic valsartan manufacturers utilized. The main reason that generic valsartan became contaminated with carcinogens is that the generic drug manufacturers were using a significantly cheaper manufacturing process compared to the name-brand drug Diovan.

Chinese Valsartan – ZHP

The majority of contaminated valsartan came from the Chinese generic drug manufacturer Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (ZHP). Also, the valsartan with by far the highest levels of carcinogens in it came from China. ZHP figured out how to make valsartan at an incredibly low price – the only problem was a byproduct of the process is one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known. Because ZHP could essentially sell valsartan cheaper than anyone else could even make it, ZHP was able to largely take over the entire world’s valsartan market. As ZHP put it, they wanted to “dominate the world market”. ZHP was successful in dominating the world market for valsartan, and in doing so poisoned tens of thousands of Americans. 

After it was discovered that the Chinese valsartan was full of deadly carcinogens, the U.S. FDA put ZHP on import alert on September 28, 2018, stopping all pharmaceutical drugs made there from legally entering the U.S. In November of 2021, Solco, a U.S. subsidiary of ZHP, announced that the FDA lifted the import alert from ZHP, at Coastal Industrial Zone, Chuannan No. 1 Branch Site, Linhai, Zhejiang, China. Solco’s President Hai Wang expressed his satisfaction, “Congratulations and thank you to the Huahai team for their hard work and dedication in making this happen. We look forward to reintroducing the products affected by Import Alert in the US Market, as well as soon-to-be new product approvals.” You would think that companies wouldn’t do business with ZHP even after the FDA lifted the import alert because the Chinese company caused so many Americans to get cancer just to make more money. However, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have been eager to do more business with ZHP, as the U.S. pharmaceutical companies also make a lot more money selling cheap Chinese drugs. 

How To Know If Your Valsartan Was Contaminated?

If you took generic valsartan between 2012 and 2019, it’s possible that you’re eligible to file a valsartan lawsuit against the manufacturer of your valsartan. A substantial amount of all generic valsartan on the market between 2012 and 2019 was contaminated with unsafe levels of carcinogens. All you need to do is fill out an online form or contact one of our valsartan attorneys at 202-792-7927 to get started.

Valsartan Recall Letters

Many patients that took contaminated valsartan never received a valsartan recall letter from the generic drug manufacturer or from their pharmacy. Unless the patient was taking contaminated valsartan at the time of the recall, it is unlikely that the patient was ever notified that they consumed valsartan contaminated with dangerous carcinogens. Recently, letters have been set to those who consumed contaminated valsartan, notifying them that they are part of a class action to recover money paid for contaminated valsartan. 

Valsartan Cancer Attorney

If you took contaminated Valsartan and subsequently developed cancer, contact one of our many experienced valsartan lawyers today at (202) 792-7927. Even though valsartan was recalled 6 years ago, it’s not too late to file a valsartan lawsuit if you’ve developed cancer. Don’t wait to contact our valsartan attorneys, it takes time to get all the necessary medical records and evidence before a valsartan lawsuit can be filed.