Pfizer 2008 Annual Report Download - page 90

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc and Subsidiary Companies
In the Multi-District Litigation, in August 2007, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide class of all
consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for “off-label” uses
from 1994 through 2004. In December 2007, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification.
In June 2007, a Pennsylvania state court certified a class of all individuals in Pennsylvania who allegedly purchased Neurontin for
“off-label” uses from 1995 to the present. The court subsequently expanded the class to include purchasers of generic gabapentin.
However, in February 2009, the court determined that class certification was not appropriate and entered an order decertifying the
class. Plaintiffs are seeking certification of statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California, Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri and Oklahoma. State courts in New York and New Mexico have declined to certify statewide classes of Neurontin
purchasers.
A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against us in various U.S. federal and state courts and in certain other countries
alleging suicide, attempted suicide and other personal injuries as a result of the purported ingesting of Neurontin. Certain of the U.S.
federal actions have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to the same Multi-District Litigation referred to in the first
paragraph of this section.
Lipitor
In March and April 2006, six purported class actions were filed against us in various federal courts alleging claims relating to the
promotion of Lipitor. In May 2006, five of the actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiffs in those actions
were added as plaintiffs in the remaining action, which had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In
May 2008, on the Company’s uncontested motion, the action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Plaintiffs, who are third-party payers, allege that, through patient and medical education programs and other actions, the
Company promoted Lipitor for use by certain patients contrary to national cholesterol guidelines that plaintiffs claim are a part of the
labeled indications for the product. In addition, in an amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, primarily as the result of the
Company’s purported failure to fully disclose the risks of alleged side-effects of Lipitor, the prices that plaintiffs paid for Lipitor were
higher than they otherwise would have been. The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of
health and welfare funds and other third-party payers that purchased Lipitor or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor since
January 1, 2002. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, fraud, unjust enrichment and a violation of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and certain state consumer fraud statutes and seek monetary and injunctive relief,
including treble damages.
In 2004, a former employee filed a “whistleblower” action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint remained under seal until September 2007, at which time the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York
declined to intervene in the case. We were served with the complaint in December 2007. Plaintiff alleges that, through patient and
medical education programs, written materials and other actions aimed at doctors, consumers, payers and investors, the Company
promoted Lipitor for use by certain patients contrary to national cholesterol guidelines that plaintiff claims are a part of the labeled
indications for the product. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Civil False Claims Act and the false claims acts of certain states
and seeks treble damages and civil penalties on behalf of the federal government and the specified states as the result their
purchase, or reimbursement of patients for the purchase, of Lipitor allegedly for such “off-label” uses. Plaintiff also seeks
compensation as a whistleblower under those federal and state statutes. In addition, plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully
terminated, in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Federal Civil False Claims Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
applicable New York law, for raising concerns about the alleged “off-label” promotion of Lipitor and about alleged instances of sexual
harassment in the workplace, and he seeks damages and the reinstatement of his employment.
Chantix/Champix
In August 2008, an individual filed a purported nationwide class action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois alleging claims relating to the marketing of Chantix. In November 2008, the action was dismissed without prejudice by the
court at the request of the plaintiff.
A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging suicide, attempted suicide and
other personal injuries as a result of the purported ingesting of Chantix, as well as economic loss. Plaintiffs in these actions seek
compensatory and punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Chantix.
In December 2008, a purported class action was filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto office) on behalf of
all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase
of Champix. This action asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of
Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages.
C. Commercial and Other Matters
Merger Agreement Between Pfizer and Wyeth
In late January and early February 2009, four purported class action complaints were filed by Wyeth shareholders challenging
Wyeth’s proposed merger with Pfizer. (See Note 21. Subsequent Event.) The actions were filed in federal court in New Jersey and
in state courts in New Jersey and Delaware. The complaints in all four actions name as defendants the members of Wyeth’s board
of directors and Wyeth. The complaints in three of the actions also name Pfizer as a defendant. The plaintiffs allege that (i) each of
the members of Wyeth’s board of directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to Wyeth and its shareholders by authorizing the sale
of Wyeth to Pfizer for what plaintiffs deem “inadequate” consideration; (ii) Wyeth directly breached and/or aided and abetted the
other defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; and (iii) in the three actions in which Pfizer is a defendant, that Pfizer aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Wyeth and its directors. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
88 2008 Financial Report