Bowerman v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
442 S.W.3d 839
Ark.2014Background
- Bowerman, a representative of Arkansas citizen-taxpayers, sues Takeda and related entities for alleged illegal exaction under Ark. Const. Art. 16 §13.
- Case was filed in Saline County Circuit Court (2011), removed to federal court (Eastern District of Arkansas) (2012), then transferred to MDL in Western District of Louisiana (2012).
- Certified questions were issued by the federal court in 2013 and accepted by this Court in 2014 under Supreme Court Rule 6-8; the questions concern illegal exaction and Nelson v. Berry Petroleum Co.
- Bowerman alleges public funds were spent on Actos (pioglitazone) with risks not adequately disclosed, causing Arkansas citizens’ harm and costly medical treatments.
- Arkansas Code §19-5-306(10)(a)(viii) authorized reimbursements for prescribed pharmaceuticals, and Bowerman does not allege misallocation of funds or illegality in the expenditure itself.
- The majority answers both certified questions in the negative, holding Bowerman has no illegal-exaction claim and Nelson is inapplicable; the dissent would overrule Nelson on the second question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ark. Const. Art. 16 §13 supports an illegal-exaction claim. | Bowerman contends illegal exaction exists due to improper spending of public funds. | Respondents argue funds were spent under lawful authority and reimbursements were proper. | No illegal-exaction claim under Art. 16 §13. |
| Whether Nelson v. Berry Petroleum Co. remains good law and controls this case. | Nelson supports broad illegal-exaction reach including private-party actions. | Nelson does not apply to the Actos facts as applied here. | Nelson inapplicable;Court declines advisory ruling on rest of question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Berry Petroleum Co., 242 Ark. 273 (1967) (illegal exaction may reach private and third-party actions)
- Ghegan & Ghegan, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 9 (1999) (broad standing in public-funds cases)
- Dockery v. Morgan, 2011 Ark. 94 (2011) (need to show funds were misapplied or arbitrarily spent)
- Quinn v. Reed, 130 Ark. 116 (1917) (early precedent on illegal-exaction)
- Farrell v. Oliver, 146 Ark. 599 (1921) (early illegal-exaction framework)
- Carnegie Pub. Library of Eureka Springs v. Carroll Cnty., 2012 Ark. 128 (2012) (defines illegal exaction and types: public funds vs. illegal tax)