In re Johnson & Johnson Derivative Litigation (865 F. Supp. 2d 545, 2011)

OPINION

WOLFSON, District Judge:

This consolidated shareholder derivative action arises out of allegations that essentially accuse certain former and current officers and directors of nominal defendant company Johnson & Johnson (“J & J”) of breaching their fiduciary duties by permitting and fostering a culture of systematic, calculated and widespread legal violations. In that sense, in the Consolidated Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”), the plaintiff-shareholders (“Plaintiffs”) intimate that these board members deliberately and knowingly took no actions in curbing various illegal activities which occurred throughout J & J’s business segments.

In the instant matter, J & J moves to dismiss the Complaint. Having failed to first make a demand to the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of J & J, the Court must assess the sufficiency of plaintiff Shareholders’ allegations through the lens of Rule 23.1, which requires a heightened pleading standard. In that regard, while under the constraints of Rule 23.1, the Court finds that demand would not have been futile, the troubling and pervasive allegations against the Board may pose a greater difficulty for J & J if the Complaint were analyzed under a more liberal pleading standard. As this current motion stands, the Court will grant the relief J & J seeks and dismiss the Complaint for the reasons that follow.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

On a motion to dismiss, I take, as I must, Plaintiffs’ allegations as true. Plaintiffs’ complaint generally consists of allegations of a series of “red flags” that Plaintiffs allege placed the Board on notice of serious corporate conduct that occurred in various divisions, or subsidiary corporations, of J & J. In this background section, I provide an overview of the extensive allegations found in Plaintiffs’ ninety-seven page complaint. I provide further detail about Plaintiffs’ allegations, where appropriate, in connection with my analysis later in this Opinion.

J & J, a global health care company incorporated in New Jersey, is a holding company that consists of over 250 subsidiaries. While some of these subsidiaries are domestic, others operate abroad. J & J categorizes its subsidiaries into three segments: consumer, pharmaceutical, and medical devices. See Compl., ¶ 47. For each of its subsidiaries, J & J employs principles of decentralized management. So, foreign subsidiaries are generally managed by citizens of the country where the subsidiary is located. As described in more detail below, Plaintiffs’ allegations relate to seven of J & J’s 250 subsidiaries.

The members of the Board, at the time of Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, were Defendants Mary Sue Coleman, Ph.D., James Cullen, Susan Lindquist, Ph.D., Leo Mul■lin, David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., William Weldon, Anne Mulcahy, Michael Johns, M.D., William Perez, Arnold Langbo, and Charles Prince. Of these directors, most of them served during the entire time frame addressed in the Complaint, 2003 through 2010. All the directors are outside directors, with the exception of William Weldon, J & J’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). The Complaint does not make any allegations of wrongdoing against Mulcahy, thus, the Court’s demand-futility analysis will focus on the other ten directors.

Altogether, Plaintiffs’ allegations describe several types of red flags from which the Court should infer that the ten directors attained knowledge of J & J’s untoward corporate acts. These red flags ■take the form of FDA warning letters, an FDA report, state attorney general subpoenas, qui tarn complaints, a criminal plea, a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DO J”), and a DOJ subpoena. The red flags cover three substantive categories of alleged corporate misconduct: (a) product recalls; (b) off-label marketing of drugs; and (c) illegal kick-backs. I describe Plaintiffs’ specific red flag allegations in the context of these categories.

A. Product Recall Allegations

Plaintiffs generally allege that three J & J subsidiaries violated federal drug regulations and that, as a result, J & J was required to recall four sets of products. The first three recalls relate to J & J subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare (“McNeil”). Plaintiffs first allege that McNeil engaged in a “phantom recall” of certain packages of Motrin. See Compl., ¶¶ 95-102. The second recall was also by McNeil, and refers specifically to over-the-counter (“OTC”) products manufactured at its Las Piedras Plant where the delayed discovery of chemically-treated wood pallets caused “uncharacteristic odors” to seep into the OTC products. See id. at ¶¶ 103-12. The complaint alleges that the FDA mailed J & J a warning letter addressed to Weldon in 2008, and inspected the facility in 2010.

The third recall relates to McNeil’s Fort Washington Plant where children’s and infants’ versions of Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec, and Benadryl were manufactured. Id. at ¶¶ 113-25. That facility was inspected by the FDA in April 2010 and, subsequently, between October and December of that year. On April 30, 2010, the Complaint alleges, J & J initiated a recall of infant and children’s liquid medicines on account of manufacturing deficiencies at the Fort Washington Plant. Id. at ¶ 122.

Finally, Plaintiffs allege that two other subsidiaries recalled medial products. According to Plaintiffs, J & J’s Vision-Care, Inc. subsidiary instituted a voluntary recall on August 18, 2010, following complaints of irritation and pain by users of Acuvue contact lenses. Id. at ¶¶ 126-27. Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that J & J subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics (“DePuy”) recalled certain hip replacement devices on August 24, 2010. Id. at ¶ 135. This recall was necessary in light of the FDA’s ordering of J & J to cease selling the Corail Hip System because J & J had been marketing the hip system for unapproved use. Id.

For the various recalls, Plaintiffs allege that several newspaper articles, statements by confidential witnesses, qui tarn suits, civil suits, congressional testimony and FDA documents constitute “red flags” that placed the Board on notice of systemic violations within J & J. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that McNeil is under federal criminal investigation. Id. at ¶ 158. However, the Complaint does not specify the nature or subject matter of this investigation.

B. Off-Label Marketing

Plaintiffs allege that several J & J subsidiaries engaged in an extensive off-label marketing campaign for three drugs — Risperdal, Topomax, and Natrecor — over several years. While doctors may prescribe FDA approved drugs for uses for which the drug is not approved, it is illegal for drug companies to market drugs for such “off-label” use. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 350-51, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001). In support of its off-label allegations, the Complaint details a hodge-podge of internal J & J reports, news articles, and FDA warning letters issued to J & J, from 1999 onward, for both the Risperdal and Topomax medications. See Compl., ¶¶ 171-208. Plaintiffs’ Natrecor allegations, in contrast, relate both to J & J’s acquisition of the company that initially developed the drug, as well as the post-acquisition off-label marketing of the drug.

With respect to Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, Plaintiffs allege that the J & J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. (“Janssen”), marketed the drug for off-label uses. See id. at ¶¶ 168-92. For Topomax, Plaintiffs allege that J & J subsidiary Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Ortho”) aggressively marketed off-label uses after the drug was respectively approved in 1996, 1999, and 2004 for three distinct, but specific, uses. Id. at ¶ 193. With respect to Natrecor, Plaintiffs allege that drug was initially developed by Scios, Inc. (“Scios”), a company subsequently acquired by J & J in 2003 with board approval, “following comprehensive due diligence.” Id. at ¶ 209, 213. According to Plaintiffs, Scios marketed Natrecor for off-label uses although it was approved only for treating patients with congestive heart failure. See id. at ¶¶ 209-40. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that J & J subsidiary Cor-dis Corporation (“Cordis”) was marketing biliary stents for off-label uses. Id. at ¶¶ 241-53. Biliary stents are medical devices implanted in the bile duct of cancer patients to aid drainage. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Cordis induced physicians to prescribe the stents for use in the vascular system. Id. at ¶ 242.

Plaintiffs allege that several red flags alerted the directors to each of these off-label marketing schemes. As with Plaintiffs’ recall allegations, the alleged red flags range from qui tam complaints and medical journal articles, to FDA warning letters and government agency subpoenas.

C. Omnicare and DePuy Kick-Back Allegations

Plaintiffs’ kickback allegations focus on the Board’s conduct in failing to remedy J & J’s subsidiaries’ use of illegal kickbacks to bolster sales. Specifically, the Complaint first alleges that J & J subsidiaries’ Janssen and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. (“HCS”) paid kickbacks to Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare”). Id. at ¶ 255. Omnicare is a company that provides pharmacy-related services to nursing home-based patients. Id. In assisting those patients, Omnicare submits reimbursement claims on the patients’ behalf. It is alleged that J & J entered into a “Drug Supply Agreement” with Omnicare that provided rebates to Omnicare based on the amount of J & J drugs that Omnicare purchased. Id. at ¶258. On account of the agreement, Omnicare convinced the nursing home patients’ physicians to switch the patients from non-J & J drugs to J & J drugs. Id. at ¶ 270.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Omnicare entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ on November 2, 2009, to resolve allegations by the DOJ, that Omnicare solicited and received kickbacks from J & J. Id. Thereafter, in early 2010, the DOJ intervened in a qui tam suit against J & J related to J & J’s role in encouraging Omnicare to promote its drugs. Id. at ¶ 271. Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not address the result of the qui tam action, perhaps because the DOJ intervened only several months prior to the filing of the instant Complaint. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the directors “understood” that the kickbacks violated the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and were illegal. Id. at ¶ 257.

With respect to DuPuy, Plaintiffs allege that DuPuy paid kickbacks to surgeons from January 2002 through December 2006 to induce them to use DePuy hip and knee replacements and reconstructive products. Id. at ¶¶ 273-77. According to the Complaint, the company received a DOJ subpoena in 2005, and a criminal complaint was filed against DuPuy in September of 2007. That criminal complaint was ultimately settled, which settlement resulted in a payment by J & J of $84.7 million dollars, Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and a Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”). Id. at ¶ 274. None of Plaintiffs’ DePuy allegations point to any specific board members, or suggest how any of the directors knew that J & J was engaging in illicit conduct at that time. As with Plaintiffs’ other allegations, the Complaint asserts these various red flags placed the Board on notice, and that the Board failed to properly respond.

D. Remaining Allegations

Plaintiffs, further, allege that several of the directors served on the Board’s audit committee, public policy advisory committee, and science and technology committee. Based upon the directors’ participation in these committees, Plaintiffs allege that the directors “had substantial knowledge relating to the allegations above and with such knowledge, knowingly permitted the Company to continue to pursue its unlawful and unethical business practices and strategies.” Id. at ¶ 301.

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that all the directors signed the company’s 10-K forms, “which disclosed many of the red flags and which the Director Defendants on the Board at the time of each Form 10-K reviewed and executed.” Id. at ¶ 279 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ counsel clarified, at oral argument, that the 10-Ks disclosed subpoenas that had been filed against certain J & J employees. No further specific allegations are made with respect to the knowledge, actions, or inactions of each director. Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts two counts: (1) Count I — breach of fiduciary duties against the directors; and (2) Count II — breach of fiduciary duties against the officers.

E. Procedural History

On April 21, 2010, co-lead plaintiff Jeanne M. Calamore filed her derivative complaint. Over the course of the next several months, other shareholders filed five additional derivative complaints. Each of these shareholders filed suit without having first made a demand on J & J’s Board.

Thereafter, on August 17, 2010, the Court consolidated the six derivative cases into the instant action titled In re Johnson & Johnson Derivative Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-2033. On December 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint that is the subject of this motion. Therein, Plaintiffs assert that they did not make a demand because demand would have been futile. Following the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, nine other shareholders made demands upon J & J’s Board with respect to matters alleged in the Complaint. J & J filed the instant motion to dismiss and to stay the litigation, pending the Board’s appointment of a Special Committee to review and investigate the demand shareholders’ assertions, on February 21, 2011. That same day, the individual defendants, officers and directors alike, named in Plaintiffs’ Complaint joined J & J’s motion to dismiss.

Meanwhile, in April 2010, the Board appointed the Special Committee to consider the demand shareholders’ assertions and the allegations made in the Complaint. The Special Committee was comprised of four independent directors, Michael Johns, Anne Mulcahy, William Perez, and Charles Prince, which directors had most recently joined the Board at the time the Committee was formed. The Special Committee, further, retained independent counsel. The investigation took over one year to complete.

On July 18, 2011, while the instant motion to dismiss and to stay was pending, the Special Committee issued its recommendation that the Board take no action with respect to the instant litigation. The Board subsequently adopted the Special Committee’s recommendation. Shortly after the Board adopted the report, the Court held oral argument on the instant motion on July 28, 2010.

Because the Board has responded to the demand shareholders’ requests, that aspect of J & J’s motion seeking a stay is now moot. J & J’s motion to dismiss, however, is now ripe for decision. In that motion, J & J argues that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy. the heightened pleading standard applicable to shareholder derivative actions found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. To be clear, those plaintiffs in the related actions that presented their demand to the Board are not subject to dismissal under Rule 23.1. This motion is pertinent to the Plaintiffs in this matter simply because they chose to file their complaint without first giving the Board the opportunity to address a demand. Keeping in mind the heightened standard applicable to plaintiffs who, like here, chose to proceed without first filing a demand on the Board, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Rule 23.1 and grants J & J’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs are, further, granted leave to amend their complaint in a manner consistent with the strictures of this Opinion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6), a court must take all allegations in the complaint as true, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff “and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir.2008) (citation and quotations omitted). In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), the Supreme Court “retired” the language in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99). Rather, the factual allegations in a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In short, “a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiffs entitlement to relief. A complaint has to ‘show’ such an entitlement with its facts.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir.2009).

B. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, “a shareholder may file a derivative suit against the board of directors to claim enforcement of a right of the corporation where the corporation has failed to assert that right.” Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 176 n. 5 (3d Cir.2007). Rule 23.1 contains specific requirements for a plaintiffs pleadings in derivative suits; a plaintiff must “allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority ..., and the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.” In re PSE & G Shareholder Litig., 173 N.J. 258, 801 A.2d 295 (2002) (“PSE & G”) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 23.1). “The purpose of Rule 23.1’s demand requirement is to ‘affor[d] the directors an opportunity to exercise their reasonable business judgment and waive a legal right vested in the corporation in the belief that its best interests will be promoted by not insisting on such right.’ ” Id. at 176. As a federal court hearing a shareholders’ derivative suit involving state law claims, a district court must “apply the federal procedural requirement of particularized pleading, but apply state substantive law to determine whether the facts demonstrate demand would have been futile and can be excused.” Id.

As with any Rule 12(b)(6) motion, in ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to satisfy the shareholder derivative suit particularity standard, the court is “required to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Kanter, 489 F.3d at 177, 178 n. 9. However, the Court need not credit bald assertions or legal conclusions found within a complaint. Id. at 177-78.

III. DISCUSSION

As noted, Defendant J & J has moved to dismiss the consolidated demand futility complaints for failure to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, and the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in PSE & G. The demand-futility plaintiffs argue, in response, that they have sufficiently plead with particularity. Both parties agree that the Court should limit its review to the pleading allegations, and should not consider the J & J Board’s acceptance of the report by the Special Committee. They further agree that the Court should not order discovery at this juncture. Hence my analysis focuses on the Complaint’s allegations and adjudges those allegations in accordance with New Jersey law.

A. New Jersey Demand-Futility Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 provides the mechanism for judging the sufficiency of shareholders’ derivative pleadings against a corporation “to enforce a right of a corporation [where the corporation] failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it....” Fed. R.Civ.P. 23.1. As explained by the court in In re Veeco Instruments, Inc. Securities Litigation, 434 F.Supp.2d 267 (S.D.N.Y.2006):

Since claims asserted in a shareholder derivative suit belong to the corporation, it is incumbent upon shareholder plaintiffs to make a demand upon the corporation’s board of directors prior to commencing an action. Indeed, “A shareholder’s right to bring a derivative action does not arise until he has made a demand on the board of directors to institute such an action directly, such demand has been wrongfully refused, or until the shareholder has demonstrated, with particularity, the reasons why presuit demand would be futile.” This requirement stems from the well-settled principle that directors, rather than shareholders, manage the affairs of the corporation, and that the decision to bring or not to bring a lawsuit is a decision concerning the management of the corporation.

Id. at 273 (internal citations omitted).

In PSE & G, the New Jersey Supreme Court explained that, under its own procedural rule, New Jersey Rule of Court 4:32-3, and by drawing on case law from Delaware, that demand-futility plaintiffs

must plead with particularity facts creating a reasonable doubt that: (1) the directors are disinterested and independent, or (2) the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment. If either prong is satisfied, demand will be excused under [Rule 4:32-3].

PSE & G, 173 N.J. at 282, 801 A.2d 295, 310. This test is referred to as the “Aron-son test,” named after the Delaware case upon which the PSE & G Court based its ruling, Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 815 (Del.1984), overruled on other grounds by Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del.2000). When applying the Aronson test, if the first prong is not satisfied, i.e., that the directors are disinterested and independent, then “there is a presumption that the Board’s actions were the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.” In re Intel Corp. Derivative Litig., 621 F.Supp.2d 165, 170 (D.Del.2009) (“In re Intel ”) (citing Beam v. Stewart, 845 A.2d 1040, 1049 (Del.2004)).

When the complaint is based on the board’s inaction, it is “impossible to perform the essential inquiry contemplated by [the second prong in] Aronson, whether the directors have acted in conformity with the business judgment rule in approving the challenged transaction.” Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting PSE & G, 173 N.J. at 282, 801 A.2d 295, 309). Accordingly, where board inaction has been alleged, New Jersey courts apply the “Rales ” test to determine if demand would have been futile. See Johnson v. Glassman, 401 N.J.Super. 222, 243-44, 950 A.2d 215 (App.Div.2008) (applying Rales to claim of board’s general “lack of action”).

The Rales test, derived from Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 934 (Del.1993), and adopted by the PSE & G Court, asks

whether or not the particularized factual allegations of a derivative stockholder complaint create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the complaint is filed, the board of directors could have properly exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand.

Kanter, supra at 177 n. 8 (quoting Rales, 634 A.2d at 934) (emphasis added). That the directors would face a “substantial likelihood’ of personal liability by complying with a shareholder’s demand to pursue litigation,” is one means by which a plaintiff may adequately allege that a board could not have properly exercised independent and disinterested business judgment. In re Intel, 621 F.Supp.2d at 170-71. However, a court may not infer that a director that faces only the “mere threat of personal liability” is not disinterested. Rales, 634 A.2d at 936 (citing Aronson, 473 A.2d at 815).

As explained in In re SFBC Intern., Inc. Securities & Derivative Litig., 495 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J.2007) (“SFBC”), when “[plaintiffs premise their theory of personal liability against the directors on their alleged failure to take any action to remedy the numerous problems plaguing [the company],” the theory of liability discussed by the Delaware Court of Chancery in In re Caremark Int’l, 698 A.2d 959 (Del.Ch.1996), applies. Id. at 484. With respect to director liability, Caremark explains:

Director liability for a breach of the duty to exercise appropriate attention may, in theory, arise in two distinct contexts. First, such liability may be said to follow from a board decision that results in a loss because that decision was ill advised or “negligent”. Second, liability to the corporation for a loss may be said to arise from an unconsidered failure of the board to act in circumstances in tuhich due attention would, arguably, have prevented the loss.

698 A.2d at 967 (emphasis added).

Furthermore, the Caremark court notes that directors are often uninformed about business decisions, made by management and employees of the corporation, that “vitally affect the welfare of the corporation and its ability to achieve its various strategic and financial goals.” 698 A.2d at 968. Caremark explains that

Most of the decisions that a corporation, acting through its human agents, makes are, of course, not the subject of director attention. Legally, the board itself will be required only to authorize the most significant corporate acts or transactions: mergers, changes in capital structure, fundamental changes in business, appointment and compensation of the CEO, etc.

Id.

Although directors may not be aware of the business decisions made by the corporation through its various human agents, Caremark nonetheless holds that directors may be liable for failing to ensure that the corporation has

information and reporting systems ... that are reasonably designed to provide to senior management and to the board itself timely, accurate information sufficient to allow management and the board, each within its scope, to reach informed judgments concerning both the corporation’s compliance with law and its business performance.

Id. at 970. In this way, directors may not merely place their “heads in the sand” to avoid liability and responsibility. Making clear that such behavior is unacceptable, the Caremark Court explicitly held that “a director’s obligation includes a duty to attempt in good faith to assure that a corporate information and reporting system, which the board concludes is adequate, exists____” Id. In that court’s view, “failure to do so under some circumstances may, in theory at least, render a director liable for losses caused by non-compliance with applicable legal standards.” Id.

Very few Caremark claims are successful, however, and the Caremark theory has often been described as “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.” In re Caremark, 698 A.2d at 967; see Veeco, 434 F.Supp.2d at 276. Cases in the Third Circuit applying Care-mark have distilled that court’s holding into a three-part test:

(1) that the directors knew or (2) should have known that violations of law were occurring and, in either event, (3) that directors took no steps in a good faith effort to prevent or remedy that situation ...

King v. Baldino, 409 Fed.Appx. 535, 537-38 (3d Cir.2010) (emphasis added). See also SFBC, 495 F.Supp.2d at 485.

“Alternatively, a plaintiff may plead facts showing that ‘the directors were conscious of the fact they were not doing their jobs,’ and that they ‘ignored ‘red flags’ indicating misconduct in defiance of their duties.’ ” King, 409 Fed.Appx. at 537 (citation omitted). “Red flags’ in this context are ‘facts showing that the board ... was aware that [the corporation’s] internal controls were inadequate.” Id. (quoting Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 370 (Del.2006)).

Allegations of bad faith on the part of the directors are central to a successful Caremark red-flag pleading. Indeed, recent Delaware state and federal decisions describe the Caremark theory as one rooted in allegations of bad faith. One court explains that Caremark

encouraged directors to act with reasonable diligence, but plainly held that director liability for failure to monitor required a finding that the directors acted with the state of mind traditionally used to define the mindset of a disloyal director — bad faith — because their indolence was so persistent that it could not be ascribed to anything other than a knowing decision not to even try to make sure the corporation’s officers had developed and were implementing a prudent approach to ensuring law compliance.

In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 123 (Del.Ch.2009) (“Citigroup”) (emphasis added) (quoting Desimone v. Barrows, 924 A.2d 908, 935 (Del.Ch.2007), and discussing Stone, 911 A.2d at 369).

The dictate that plaintiffs must plead bad faith allegations is heightened when the directors are entitled to the protections of an exculpatory charter that insulates directors from liability for acts or omissions in the course of their director duties. Such exculpatory charters are recognized and enforced by New Jersey courts, but such charters may not limit a director’s liability for acts or omissions committed in bad faith. “Where, as here, directors are exculpated from liability except for claims based on ‘fraudulent,’ ‘illegal’ or ‘bad faith’ conduct, a plaintiff must also plead particularized facts that demonstrate that the directors acted with scienter, i.e., that they had ‘actual or constructive knowledge’ that their conduct was legally improper.” Wood v. Baum, 953 A.2d 136, 141 (Del.2008). Referencing similar clauses that are enforceable under Delaware law, the court in Desimone explains, “[b]y reinforcing that a scienterbased standard applies to claims in the delicate monitoring context, [courts] ensure[ ] that the protections that exculpatory charter provisions afford to independent directors against damage claims [are] not be eroded.” 924 A.2d at 935.

In this connection, Kanter explains that it is essential to a Caremark pleading that a plaintiff allege that the directors were “conscious of the fact that they were not doing their jobs.” Kanter, 489 F.3d at 181; id. at 177 (describing actual knowledge requirement). Moreover, the complaint must provide particularized allegations from which the court can infer the board had knowledge of the allegedly corrupt corporate conduct and either “knew they were not discharging their fiduciary obligations or that they demonstrated a conscious disregard for their duties.” Intel, 621 F.Supp.2d at 174 (quoting Citigroup, 964 A.2d at 122-23). Thus, “while directors could be liable for a failure to monitor, only a sustained or systematic failure of the board to exercise oversight— such as an utter failure to attempt to assure a reasonable information and reporting system exists — will establish the lack of good faith that is a necessary condition to liability.” Citigroup, 964 A.2d at 122 (emphasis added).

Finally, there are three ways in which shareholder derivative plaintiffs may allege that a director is not disinterested and independent. Plaintiffs may allege that a director received a personal benefit from his or her action or inaction, or that a director is under the control of another Board member and fails to exercise independent judgment. Johnson, 401 N.J.Super. at 239-40, 243, 950 A.2d 215. Alternatively, plaintiffs may allege that the director faces a substantial likelihood of personal liability for the challenged action or inaction and, therefore, could not fairly represent the corporation’s interests. Id. at 243, 950 A.2d 215. In short, “[a] director is independent if he can base his decision ‘on the corporate merits of the subject before the board rather than extraneous considerations or influence.’ ” Veeco, 434 F.Supp.2d at 275 (quoting Seminaris v. Landa, 662 A.2d 1350, 1354 (Del.Ch.1995)). Whether a director is disinterested and independent is a fact-intensive inquiry. Id. at 239.

Plaintiffs’ allegations, here, focus on whether the directors face a substantial likelihood of personal liability for their failure to act in the face of serious corporate misconduct. In ascertaining whether a director faces such liability, courts may infer, from particularized allegations of red flags, that directors knew of corporate misconduct. Courts will make such inferences where there are “well-pleaded facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that this [red flag] was knowable and that the defendant was in a position to know it.” Citigroup, 964 A.2d at 135 n. 93.

Moreover, even when allegations suggest that a director knew of a given red flag, that mere knowledge “do[es] not support a reasonable inference that the director defendants’ [failure to act] ... was not in good faith.” Id. In other words, Plaintiffs must plead specific facts from which the Court can infer not simply a failure to act but a failure to act in bad faith. Plaintiffs may accomplish this by pleading, for example, facts from which the Court may infer that the directors knew that their failure to act would have breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation, or that their conduct was otherwise “legally improper.” Intel, 621 F.Supp.2d at 171. This is because directors are not exculpated from liability, under a corporation’s exculpatory charter, for “claims based on fraudulent, illegal or bad faith conduct .... ” Wood, 953 A.2d at 141.

B. Analysis

In light of the weighty allegations of corporate misconduct and director inaction in the instant Complaint, I find the following comments by the Delaware Supreme Court in Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del.2000), appropriate here:

This is a case about whether there should be personal liability of the directors of a ... corporation to the corporation for lack of due care in the [corporate] decisionmaking process and.... This case is not about the failure of the directors to establish and carry out ideal corporate governance practices.

Id. at 255.

The Brehm Court further explained that, while “[a]ll good corporate governance practices include compliance with statutory law and case law establishing fiduciary duties,” the inverse is not true. Id. at 255. In other words, “the law of corporate fiduciary duties and remedies for violation of those duties are distinct from the aspirational goals of ideal corporate governance practices.” Id. at 255-56. This means that “aspirational ideas of good corporate governance practices for boards of directors ... are not required by the corporation law and do not define standards of liability.” Id. at 255-56. I find these words appropriate in this case where Plaintiffs’ allegations suggest that the J & J Board did not live up to aspirational ideals, yet Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the directors acted in bad faith to violate their fiduciary duties.

Here, Plaintiffs allege that the numerous red flags recounted in the Complaint demonstrate that the Board members had knowledge of J & J’s illegal and irresponsible practices that ultimately caused the company financial harm, yet the directors failed to act to stop the company’s illicit behavior. As noted, “[t]hese red flags came in the form of federal and state regulatory investigations, subpoenas and requests for documents, FDA Warning Letters, news articles and the recall of products accounting for hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate losses.” Compl., ¶ 278.

Because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not speak to any particular action of the Board, but rather Board inaction, the Rales test applies here. Because Plaintiffs also allege that the Board’s oversight committees failed to adequately oversee the company’s activities, the Caremark theory of inadequate oversight is also applicable. Whether described as a Caremark theory or not, the touchstone of the demand-futility analysis is whether a majority of the Board members “could have properly exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand.” Rales, 634 A.2d at 934. I refer to this analysis, at times, as the “disinterested director test” or “disinterested director analysis.”

1. Applicability of the Aronson Test

To be sure, Plaintiffs argue that their allegations may also fall under the Aron-son test for director action by characterizing their allegations as establishing that the directors consciously decided not to act. Suffice it to say that some courts have adopted this type of reasoning, which derives from the Seventh Circuit’s decision in In re: Abbott Labs. Derivative S’holders Litig., 325 F.3d 795 (7th Cir.2003). However, the Third Circuit has expressed reservations about applying Abbott’s, reasoning to New Jersey corporations. See Fagin v. Gilmartin, 432 F.3d 276, 282-83 (3d Cir.2005). Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court has yet to address Abbott, and New Jersey lower court decisions have applied it only to those limited circumstances in which a complaint alleges “extreme indifference.” Fagin v. Gilmartin, 2007 WL 2176482 at *11 (Ch.Div.2007); see Johnson, 401 N.J.Super. at 243-46, 950 A.2d 215. Finally, the parties agreed at oral argument that the approach of the SFBC, supra and Merck, supra courts provided a helpful analytical framework for this case, and both of those cases applied Rales to their respective red flag allegations.

2. The Gestault Theory

Before turning to the substance of Plaintiffs’ allegations, I address the parties’ dispute about whether the red flag allegations must be considered separately or together. Plaintiffs argue that the Court consider the alleged red flags “holistically,” Tr. 17:4-5, whereas J & J argues that the Court must view the red flags in a more isolated fashion. So, for example, J & J argues that the Court should consider the off-label marketing red flag allegations separately from the illegal kickback allegations.

Plaintiffs cite In re American Intern. Group, Inc., 965 A.2d 763 (Del.Ch.2009) (“In re AIG ”), for their argument that all red flags should be considered together, in that case, the court suggested that the defendants’ “attempt to focus on each scheme individually instead of on ... the Complaint as a whole” was inappropriate. Id. at 796. Plaintiffs’ reliance on In re AIG, however, is misplaced because that court was not discussing the Rule 23.1 particularized' pleading standard when it made the aforesaid statement. Id. at 795. Rather, In re AIG applied the more lenient Rule 12(b)(6) standard. See id. (“[A]t this stage, is the basic issue [sic]: whether, under the plaintiff-friendly Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the Complaint states a claim that [the director defendants] committed a non-exculpated breach of their fiduciary duties.”); id. at 811.

Nonetheless, several courts have held that red flags must be considered “cumulatively” in ascertaining whether a majority of the Board members “could not have fairly considered a demand.... ” In re Bidz.com, Inc., 773 F.Supp.2d 844, 861 (C.D.Cal.2011) (“Bidz”). See also In re Cray Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1121 (W.D.Wash.2006) (“The [demand-futility] inquiry requires courts to look to the totality of the circumstances in assessing whether a complaint creates a “reasonable doubt” concerning the board’s independence or disinterestedness.... ”); Veeco, supra at 274; McCall, 239 F.3d at 817; In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Litig., 189 F.R.D. 117, 128 (D.N.J.1999) (citing Harris, supra).

These cases cite Harris v. Carter, 582 A.2d 222, 229 (Del.Ch.1990), for that proposition. Harris stated that, in determining whether a director is disinterested and independent,

no single factor — such as receipt of directorial compensation; family or social relationships; approval of the transaction attacked; or other relationships with the corporation (e.g., attorney or banker) — may itself be dispositive in any particular case. Rather the question is whether the accumulation of all factors creates ... reasonable doubt [that the directors are disinterested and independent].

Id. at 229.

While J & J argues that the accumulation approach ignores the realities of J & J’s corporate structure, J & J has not provided any legal support for its argument that each category of wrongful conduct alleged by Plaintiffs must be considered in isolation. That said, a relatively recent Delaware case suggests that it is rare that the accumulation approach will be successful for a plaintiff:

Successful derivative plaintiffs ... must focus intensely upon individual director’s conflicts of interest or particular transactions that are beyond the bounds of business judgment. The appropriate analysis focuses upon each particular action, or failure to act, challenged by a plaintiff. Accumulating hundreds of allegations that individually would never withstand challenge under the [demand-futility] test, ... in the hopes that collectively they will survive, is a strategy that succeeds in only the most uncommon and egregious of cases.

In re INFOUSA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, 953 A.2d 963, 984 (Del.Ch.2007) (“INFOUSA”). Nor is it appropriate for a shareholder-plaintiff to “attempt to compensate for the weakness of each particular allegation through an appeal to [the allegations’] collective unwholesomeness.” Id. at 972. Yet, despite these pronouncements, that court concludes that the plaintiffs’ “myriad allegations,” “scattered throughout the complaint” in that case, demonstrated that demand would have been futile. Id. at 984-85.

In light of the aforesaid case law, it is my view that it is proper to consider Plaintiffs’ red flag allegations in the aggregate. Even so, in light of the various types of wrongful conduct alleged in this case, at times, I And it appropriate to discuss the allegations categorically. So, I will follow J & J’s approach of analyzing all off-label marketing allegations together, for example, while separately analyzing the kickback allegations. In my final analysis, though, I will consider whether the sum of all the allegations sufficiently demonstrates a majority of the Board was not disinterested or independent.

3. Plaintiffs’ Allegations regarding Director Liability

Having clarified that the Court should view Plaintiffs’ allegations as a whole, I now turn to the substance of Plaintiffs’ allegations against the directors. As of April 13, 2010, the date of the initial complaint, the following eleven individuals served as directors on the Board: Coleman, Cullen, Lindquist, Mullin, Satcher, Weldon, Mulcahy, Johns, Perez, Poon, and Prince. Each of the directors is an outside director with the exception of Weldon, who is also J & J’s CEO and Chairman of the Board. Both inside and outside directors are entitled to the presumption that they are independent and disinterested. See Fagin, 432 F.3d at 283 (“The fact that a director is also an officer, without more, is insufficient to establish the director’s interest or lack of independence.”); Bidz, 773 F.Supp.2d at 856 n. 6 (“Delaware law ... entitles both inside[ ] and outside directors to the presumption that they act independently, while faithful to their fiduciary duties.”). It is Plaintiffs’ obligation to allege particularized facts suggesting that a majority of the directors, in fact, are neither independent nor disinterested.

The earliest allegation of a “red flag” during the tenure of the named director defendants in the complaint is July 2003. Plaintiffs allege that all directors, served on the Board from 2003 through 2010, with the exception of Johns, who became a director in 2005, Prince who became a director in 2006, and Perez who became a director in 2007. Because the remaining eight directors comprise a majority of the Board, I need not limit my analysis to any given time frame.

The other reason that I need not limit my analysis to a particular time frame is because, for almost all the red flags, Plaintiffs do not distinguish among the various directors but suggest that all directors received equal information. The only exception is Plaintiffs’ allegations relating to CEO and Chairman Weldon. However, to the extent Plaintiffs allege that Weldon had knowledge of particular red flags, those allegations are unhelpful to Plaintiffs because they do not suggest that a majority of the Board had that same knowledge. See Intel, supra at 174-75. For this reason, I also do not distinguish between particular directors in my analysis. Instead, as indicated supra, I systematically address the various types and categories of allegations and then consider them as a whole.

In considering Plaintiffs’ allegations, I reiterate that my focus is on whether the Plaintiffs have alleged particularized red flag allegations from which I can infer that a majority of the Board faces a substantial risk of personal liability because the directors acted in bad faith in failing to properly oversee the company. As the following discussion illustrates, Plaintiffs have failed to meet this rigorous pleading mandate.

a. Omnicare and DePuy Allegations

Plaintiffs’ strongest director liability arguments relate to the Omnicare and DePuy kickback allegations. Plaintiffs’ kickback allegations center on the Board’s conduct in failing to remedy J & J subsidiaries’ Janssen and HCS’s agreements with Omnicare that involved sale-bolstering kickbacks, as well as kickbacks paid by DuPuy, a different J & J subsidiary, to surgeons. I address each set of agreements in turn.

(1) Omnicare

As noted, Plaintiffs allege that Janssen and HCS entered into an agreement with Omnicare, a nursing home pharmacist company, whereby J & J provided illicit kickbacks in connection with J & J’s off-label marketing schemes. Compl., ¶¶ 254-55. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs allege that the directors “understood” that the kickbacks violated the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and were illegal. Id. at ¶257. This allegation is conclusory and must be rejected.

Second, Plaintiffs allege that there were several red flags that made the Board aware of Janssen’s and HCS’s conduct. In September 2005, Plaintiffs allege, J & J received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, and that several Janssen and HCS employees were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Id. at ¶ 281. Plaintiffs do not allege that the Board received a copy of these subpoenas. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that one of the officers on the Board, Defendant Russell C. Deyo, J & J’s Chief Compliance Officer “sat on the Public Policy Committee of the Board, providing a critical additional source of reporting and information to this committee and, through it, the entire Board.” Id.

The Complaint further alleges that “[t]he Company’s Public Policy Advisory Committee consists both of directors and senior executive officers of the Company, including the General Counsel and senior executives in charge of government and regulatory affairs.” Id. at ¶ 299. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]he Committee’s purpose includes reviewing and advising the Board on governmental and regulatory affairs involving public health issues. The members of the Public Policy Advisory Committee were regularly apprised by the General Counsel and other senior executives of the Company of regulatory affairs and compliance matters affecting the Company [sic] regularly reported to the full Board concerning significant issues and concerns arising at the committee’s meetings.” Id. As for the directors that served on the Public Policy Advisory Committee during 2005 and 2006, the Complaint alleges only that Directors Lindquist and Mullin were serving on the committee at that time. See id. at ¶ 297e-f.

In short, Plaintiffs assert that the Board knew about the 2005 subpoenas because Officer Deyo and Directors Lindquist and Mullin sat on the Public Policy Committee. Indeed, Plaintiffs argued at oral argument that the Court may infer Board knowledge simply from the fact that certain members sat on committees of the Board that presumably discussed the various instances of corporate misconduct detailed in the Complaint.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, New-Jersey and Delaware-based courts do not infer Board knowledge from committee membership alone. While other courts have looked solely to committee membership, see e.g., McCall v. Scott, 239 F.3d 808, 820 (6th Cir.2001); Abbott, 325 F.3d at 806, Plaintiffs have not pointed to any authority from courts in New Jersey or Delaware for that proposition. Indeed, New Jersey and Delaware-based courts require Plaintiffs to allege, with particularity, how often the committee and- the Board met, who on the committee communicated the corporate misconduct to the Board, and how the Board responded to the information provided to them. See e.g., Desimone, supra, at 940 (holding that membership on Audit Committee is an insufficient basis for concluding that Board knowingly failed to act); Johnson, 401 N.J.Super. at 244-M5, 950 A.2d 215. Accord Bidz, 773 F.Supp.2d at 858 n. 7 (citing case for the proposition that “general allegations of the Audit Committee’s responsibilities [are] insufficient to support allegations that the Audit Committee members knew of the alleged wrongdoing....”); Markewich ex rel. Medtronic, Inc. v. Collins, 622 F.Supp.2d 802 (D.Minn.2009) (“[I] it is well settled that committee membership is an insufficient basis on which to infer knowledge.”). As explained by the court in Citigroup, “[although the members of the [Audit and Risk Management (“ARM”) ] Committee were charged with reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of Citigroup’s financial statements under the ARM Committee charter, director liability is not measured by the aspirational standard established by the internal documents detailing a company’s oversight system.” 964 A.2d at 135.

Delaware and New Jersey-based courts require Plaintiffs to allege that committee members knew of particular corporate misconduct, and that the committee members communicated that knowledge to the Board. See Desimone, 924 A.2d at 943 (describing Saito v. McCall, 2004 WL 3029876 (Del.Ch.2004), overruled on other grounds by Lambrecht v. O’Neal, 3 A.3d 277 (Del.2010), in which “the complaint pled specific facts that the company’s Audit Committee knew of certain accounting risks and that the risks were specifically discussed with some board members”).

In Saito, for example, the complaint included specific allegations regarding audit committee meetings with the company’s auditor, in which meetings corporate misconduct was discussed. 2004 WL 3029876 at *2. These allegations included specific dates for the meetings, a list of who was present at the meetings, and who communicated the corporate misconduct-related information to the board members at each meeting. The court was willing to infer from these specific allegations that the directors who sat on the audit committee told the remaining directors about the corporate misconduct.

While Plaintiffs’ allegations specify which Board members sat on the Public Policy Committee, there are no allegations regarding meeting dates, who was actually present at the meetings., or what subjects were discussed. Without this sort of factual detail, the Court cannot infer that a majority of the Board knew about the substance of the 2005 subpoenas, or any other subpoenas or government investigations disclosed in the 10-Ks, for that matter. Accord Intel, supra, at 174, 177-78 (stating that a court may infer director knowledge from committee members only where there are allegations that the directors attended specific meetings where the misconduct was discussed, allegations about how often the committee met, and allegations .about who attended the meetings).

Indeed, the New Jersey Appellate Division held in Johnson v. Glassman that allegations of committee membership must include more detail than what has been plead here. That court quoted the following language of a District of Colorado decision with approval:

Ml the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint ... ostensibly demonstrates is that Carrier had an audit committee and the four independent outside director defendants were members of this committee during the period where the accounting improprieties occurred. That is not enough. Plaintiffs produce no evidence of the role, “if any, the Board or its members played in the internal processes of collecting and disseminating financial information.” They aver no facts showing “how often” and “how long [the Audit Committee] met, who advised the committee, and whether the committee discussed and approved any of the allegedly improper accounting practices.” Which specific oversight duties did the independent outside directors neglect? What specific action did these directors fail to take? What “specific red-or even yellow-flags were waved at the outside directors”? While plaintiffs claim to have alleged specific facts addressing these questions the Court can find none.

401 N.J.Super. 222, 244-45, 950 A.2d 215 (App.Div.2008) (quoting Kenney v. Koenig, 426 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1183 (D.Colo.2006)). This language applies with equal force here.

Plaintiffs further point to J & J’s 2006 Form 10-K as evidence of director knowledge about the 2005 subpoenas. This allegation, unlike Plaintiffs’ committee membership allegation, provides a basis for the Court to infer that the Board was aware of the subpoenas. The 2006 10-K states that

[i]n September 2005, Johnson & Johnson received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts, seeking documents related to sales and marketing of eight drugs to Omnicare, Inc., a manager of pharmaceutical benefits for long-term care facilities. The Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries involved are in the process of responding to the subpoena.

Johnson & Johnson Form 10-K (Annual Report) for period ending December 31, 2006 (“2006 10-K”) at 62. Plaintiffs allege that directors Coleman, Cullen, Johns, Langbo, Lindquist, Mullin, Prince, Satcher and Weldon signed this 10-K form.

That the 10-K informed the directors about the subpoena, however, does not end my analysis. It is important to note at the outset that the 10-K’s statement does not suggest that the subpoena involved alleged kickbacks, nor does it suggest that J & J or its subsidiaries acknowledged wrongdoing. Accordingly, the 10-K’s statement is distinguishable from those eases that infer Board knowledge from a 10-K that explicitly acknowledges corporate misconduct. See e.g., In re Veeco Instr., Inc. Sec. Litig., 434 F.Supp.2d 267, 277 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (relying on 10-K statement indicating that “a deficiency existed in the internal control over financial reporting,” yet the Board took no action for more than a year following this admission).

Indeed, as to this red flag, the pertinent question is not whether the Board knew about the subpoena but whether the subpoena is a determination of wrongdoing. At least one court has suggested that subpoenas, and other forms of preliminary matters in an investigation of corporate misconduct, do not shed light on whether the corporation actually engaged in misconduct. See Intel, supra at 175 (concluding that preliminary findings of government investigation entitled to little weight). I find this reasoning persuasive because such red flags do not suggest that a board was aware of corporate misconduct — they suggest only that the board was aware that the company was under investigation.

Furthermore, disclosure of the subpoenas does not suggest that the Board knew that a refusal to act would be a breach of their fiduciary duties as directors. See Intel, supra at 174 (holding that directors’ signatures on 10-K forms that show directors were aware of pending investigations do not support the inference that “the Directors had constructive knowledge that an alleged failure to respond to the ‘red flags’ would be a breach of their fiduciary duties, which is required under Delaware law.”). As aptly stated by the court in Markewich, “Director Defendants cannot face a substantial likelihood of personal liability for unknown conduct that may be discovered.” 622 F.Supp.2d at 810 (emphasis in original). This is not to say that the directors’ knowledge of the subpoena may not be taken into consideration along with Plaintiffs’ other red flag allegations, but it is insufficient on its own to demonstrate that the directors were not independent and disinterested. Cf. McCall, 239 F.3d at 821 (“[T]he lawsuit did not necessarily warn that improper practices were being employed systematically, [however,] the lawsuit ... should be considered with all of the facts.”)

Finally, the 2006 10-K indicated that the company was cooperating with the DOJ’s investigation. In light of this language, the Court cannot conclude that disclosure of the subpoenas indicated that, even if there was corporate misconduct, that it was continuing. To the contrary, this language suggests that the corporation was responding appropriately and the directors did not need to respond at that point in time.

Plaintiffs next allege that the 2009 settlement agreement between Omnicare and the Department of Justice, regarding kickbacks Omnicare received from J & J between January 1999 and December 2004, constitutes a red flag that suggests the Board knew of the Omnicare kickback scheme. Id. at ¶ 270. I disagree. For one, the Omnicare settlement agreement was between Omnicare and the DOJ — not the J & J subsidiaries of Janssen and HCS and the DOJ. This distinction is important because Omnicare is not a J & J subsidiary. Therefore, whatever admissions of liability that Omnicare made in its settlement with the DOJ cannot be imputed to J & J or the J & J subsidiaries.

In this connection, there is nothing in Plaintiffs’ allegations to suggest that, within the settlement agreement, J & J or its subsidiaries admitted that the subsidiaries engaged in unlawful conduct. One of the key cases relied upon by Plaintiffs, Pfizer, supra, involved a settlement agreement in which the company admitted that it participated in an illegal marketing scheme. 722 F.Supp.2d at 457. Moreover, the company in that ease admitted that it continued engaging in that sort of illegal behavior for several years after entering into a corporate compliance agreement with the Food and Drug Administration. Id. Needless to say, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not point to any similar admission of longstanding wrongful conduct after governmental intervention.

Second, even if the Omnicare settlement suggests that Janssen and HCS engaged in wrongdoing, the settlement agreement was entered into in November 2, 2009, only five months before the initial complaint in this suit was filed in April of 2010. Courts that have held that a Board failed to act in bad faith, and therefore that the directors faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability, have relied on much longer periods of time of alleged Board inaction. See e.g., SFBC, 495 F.Supp.2d at 480 (three years); Abbott, 325 F.3d at 806-08 (six years); Veeco, 434 F.Supp.2d 267, 277 (Board refused to act for over one year after corporation expressly admitted to lacking sufficient internal controls). In my view, five months does not provide a sufficient basis for inferring that the directors engaged in the sort egregious, conscious disregard of their duties like that alleged in those cases.

Another alleged red flag involves two qui tam suits filed against J & J (not the subsidiaries). Compl. at ¶ 271. According to the Complaint, two civil qui tam cases were filed in April 2009 and disclosed in the 2009 10-K. Id. at ¶ 282. The filing of these two complaints, alone, is not probative because knowledge of unsubstantiated qui tam allegations, on their own, do not suggest that the Board was aware of continued corporate misconduct.

That said, it is significant that the federal government intervened in the qui tam complaints in January 2010. Once the government intervenes in a qui tam suit, the allegations are transformed from that of a civil plaintiff to that of the government. See U.S. ex rel. Merena v. Smith- Kline Beecham Corp., 205 F.3d 97, 102 (3d Cir.2000) (des