Pfizer 2013 Annual Report Download - page 109

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
108
2013 Financial Report
costs should be allocated to their policies, and the court held that Warner-Lambert and American Optical are entitled to payment from each of
those carriers of a proportionate share of the costs associated with those claims. In the fourth quarter of 2013: (i) Warner-Lambert and
American Optical entered into settlement agreements with all of those remaining carriers pursuant to which the carriers agreed to pay a
portion of the past costs and to provide coverage for a portion of the future costs of defending and resolving the aforementioned claims against
American Optical; and (ii) Warner-Lambert’s and American Optical’s action against the insurance carriers was dismissed.
Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure
to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company (Gibsonburg).
Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early 1970s.
There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in
facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries.
Celebrex and Bextra
Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former
officers of Pfizer violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation
MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a
class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005.
Various Drugs: Off-Label Promotion Action
In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer and several of our
current and former officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Pfizer to make
false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material information, concerning the alleged off-label promotion
of certain pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote the sale of those products and government investigations
related thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. In March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all persons who
purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S. stock exchanges between January 19, 2006 and January 23, 2009 and were damaged
as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations.
Various Drugs: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance
In February 2013, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against
certain current and former officers and directors of Pfizer. Pfizer is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company as the result of, among other things, inadequate oversight of compliance by Pfizer
subsidiaries in various countries outside the U.S. with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The plaintiff seeks damages in unspecified
amounts and other unspecified relief on behalf of Pfizer.
Effexor
• Personal Injury Actions
A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts
alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor. Among other types of actions, the Effexor personal injury litigation
includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in
these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages. In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation
MDL-2458) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Antitrust Actions
Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the
actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The
plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased,
indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14,
2008 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic
Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection
and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR,
enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer with respect to Effexor
XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class
actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these
actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Zoloft
A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts
alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation
includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these
birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Zoloft. In April 2012,
the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zoloft Products Liability
Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.