Pfizer 2011 Annual Report Download - page 106

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
Bapineuzumab
In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as successor
to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth. The complaint alleges that Wyeth and the individual defendants violated federal
securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Wyeth to
fail to disclose material information, concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab, a product in development for
the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased Wyeth
securities from May 21, 2007 through July 2008 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class. In
February 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The court’s decision is subject to possible appeal
by the plaintiff.
In July 2010, a related action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Elan Corporation
(Elan), certain directors and officers of Elan, and Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth. Elan participated in the development of
bapineuzumab until September 2009. The complaint alleges that Elan, Wyeth and the individual defendants violated federal
securities laws by making or causing Elan to make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Elan to fail
to disclose material information, concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class consisting of all persons who purchased Elan call options from June 17, 2008 through July 29, 2008 and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class. In June 2011, the court granted Pfizer’s and Elan’s motions to dismiss the
complaint. In July 2011, the plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum setting forth the bases that the plaintiff believed supported
amendment of the complaint. In August 2011, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In September 2011, the plaintiff
appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Thimerosal
Wyeth is a defendant in a number of suits by or on behalf of vaccine recipients alleging that exposure through vaccines to
cumulative doses of thimerosal, a preservative used in certain childhood vaccines formerly manufactured and distributed by Wyeth
and other vaccine manufacturers, caused severe neurological damage and/or autism in children. While several suits were filed as
purported nationwide or statewide class actions, all of the purported class actions have been dismissed, either by the courts or
voluntarily by the plaintiffs. In addition to the suits alleging injury from exposure to thimerosal, certain of the cases were brought by
parents in their individual capacities for, among other things, loss of services and loss of consortium of the injured child.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the Vaccine Act) requires that persons alleging injury from childhood vaccines first file a
petition in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims asserting a vaccine-related injury. At the conclusion of that proceeding, petitioners may
bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer in federal or state court, provided that they have satisfied certain procedural requirements.
Also under the terms of the Vaccine Act, if a petition has not been adjudicated by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims within a specified
time period after filing, the petitioner may opt out of the proceeding and pursue a lawsuit against the manufacturer by following
certain procedures. Some of the vaccine recipients who have sued Wyeth to date may not have satisfied the conditions to filing a
lawsuit that are mandated by the Vaccine Act. The claims brought by parents for, among other things, loss of services and loss of
consortium of the injured child are not covered by the Vaccine Act.
In 2002, the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims established an Omnibus Autism Proceeding with
jurisdiction over petitions in which vaccine recipients claim to suffer from autism or autism spectrum disorder as a result of receiving
thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and/or the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. There currently are several
thousand petitions pending in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. Special masters of the court have heard six test cases on
petitioners’ theories that either thimerosal-containing vaccines in combination with the MMR vaccine or thimerosal-containing
vaccines alone can cause autism or autism spectrum disorder.
•In February 2009, special masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected the three cases brought on the theory that a
combination of MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines caused petitioners’ conditions. After these rulings were affirmed by the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, two of them were appealed by petitioners to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2010, the
Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions of the special masters in both of these cases.
•In March 2010, special masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected the three additional test cases brought on the theory that
thimerosal-containing vaccines alone caused petitioners’ conditions. Petitioners did not seek review by the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims of the decisions of the special masters in these latter three test cases, and judgments were entered dismissing the cases in April
2010.
•Petitioners in each of the six test cases have filed an election to bring a civil action.
Pristiq
In late 2007 and early 2008, the following actions were filed in various federal courts: (i) a purported class action alleging that Wyeth
and certain former officers of Wyeth violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Pristiq during the period before
the FDA’s issuance in July 2007 of an “approvable letter” for Pristiq for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, which allegedly
caused a decline in the price of Wyeth stock; and (ii) a purported class action against Wyeth, the Wyeth Savings Plan Committee,
the Wyeth Savings Plan-Puerto Rico Committee, the Wyeth Retirement Committee and certain former Wyeth officers and committee
members alleging that they violated certain provisions of ERISA by maintaining Wyeth stock as an investment alternative under
certain Wyeth plans notwithstanding their alleged knowledge of the aforementioned alleged misrepresentation.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the ERISA action and denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend
the complaint in March and August 2010, respectively. In September 2010, the plaintiff appealed both of those rulings to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In November 2010, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal, but has reserved the right to reinstate
the appeal by March 2012. The purported securities class action remains pending.
2011 Financial Report 105