Pfizer 2010 Annual Report Download - page 107

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
This litigation originally included both individual actions as well as various purported nationwide and statewide class actions.
However, as a result of the denial of class certification by the courts in certain actions, the voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs of
certain purported class actions and the withdrawal of the class action allegations by the plaintiffs in certain other actions, this
litigation now consists of individual actions, a few purported statewide class actions and a purported nationwide class action in
Canada.
Pfizer and its affiliated companies, including Wyeth, have prevailed in many of the hormone-replacement therapy actions that have
been resolved to date, whether by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, summary judgment, defense verdict or judgment
notwithstanding the verdict; a number of these cases have been appealed by the plaintiffs. Certain other hormone-replacement
therapy actions have resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs and have included the award of compensatory and, in some instances,
punitive damages; each of these cases has been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies. The decisions in a few of the
cases that had been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies have been upheld by the appellate courts, while several other
cases that had been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies or by the plaintiffs have been sent back by the appellate
courts to their respective trial courts for further proceedings. In addition, a number of hormone-replacement therapy actions have
been settled by the parties in advance of trial. Trials of additional hormone-replacement therapy actions are scheduled for 2011.
Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies also have received inquiries from various federal and state agencies and officials relating to the
marketing of their hormone-replacement products. In November 2008, the State of Nevada filed an action against Pfizer,
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Wyeth in state court in Nevada alleging that they had engaged in deceptive marketing of their
respective hormone-replacement therapy medications in Nevada in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The
action seeks monetary relief, including civil penalties and treble damages. In February 2010, the action was dismissed by the court
on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. In March 2010, the State of Nevada appealed the court’s ruling to the
Nevada Supreme Court.
Zoloft and Effexor
A number of individual lawsuits, as well as a multi-plaintiff lawsuit with respect to Effexor, have been filed against us and/or our
subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingesting of Zoloft or Effexor.
Trovan
In 2009, we entered into agreements with the Federal Government of Nigeria and the State of Kano, Nigeria, to resolve all of the
civil and criminal cases pending against us in Nigeria related to the pediatric clinical study of Trovan that we conducted in Kano
during a severe meningitis epidemic in 1996. In 2010, a lawsuit was filed in Nigeria against the State of Kano and us, among others,
on behalf of individuals who claim to be former study participants or the parents or guardians of former study participants. The
plaintiffs sought to enjoin the part of the settlement agreement with the State of Kano that established a fund to compensate former
study participants and the parents and guardians of former study participants for alleged injuries, and the plaintiffs also sought
damages for those alleged injuries. In February 2011, the parties to this action and the parties to two substantially similar actions
against us in the U.S. entered into an agreement providing for the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of all three actions on
terms that are not material to Pfizer. The settlement agreement is subject to our receipt of releases from all of the plaintiffs in the
cases.
Neurontin
A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging
claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide
and certain statewide classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-
party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications other than
those included in the product labeling approved by the FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts, including individual
actions as well as purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re
Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Purported class actions also have been filed against us in various Canadian provincial courts alleging claims arising
from the promotion and sale of Neurontin and generic gabapentin.
In the Multi-District Litigation, in 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for certification of 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. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. Although the court has not yet ruled on the motion for
reconsideration, in December 2010, the court partially granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims
of all of the proposed class representatives for third-party payers and two of the six proposed class representatives for individual
consumers. One of the proposed class representatives for third-party payers has filed a motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs are seeking certification of statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California, Illinois and
Oklahoma. State courts in New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri and New Mexico have declined to certify statewide classes of
Neurontin purchasers.
In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered an order affirming a jury verdict against us in an
action by a third-party payer seeking damages for the alleged off-label promotion of Neurontin in violation of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and California’s Unfair Trade Practices law. The verdict was for $47.4 million,
which is subject to automatic trebling to $142.2 million under the RICO Act. In November 2010, the court had entered a separate
verdict against us in the amount of $65.4 million under California’s Unfair Trade Practices law relating to the same alleged conduct,
which amount is included within and is not additional to the $142.2 million trebled amount of the jury verdict. We intend to appeal
both verdicts and believe we have good grounds for reversal.
2010 Financial Report 105