Pfizer 2013 Annual Report Download - page 111

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
110
2013 Financial Report
• Antitrust Actions
Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against Pfizer, certain affiliates of
Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, among others. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or
statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly
unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled
certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning
on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks,
among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions,
generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates,
among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In November 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss all of the foregoing actions. In September 2013, the court dismissed the claims by direct
purchasers that relate to the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. In addition, the court limited the timeframe for
which direct purchasers may pursue their remaining damage claims to the period from June 2011 to November 2011. In October 2013, all of
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs, except for certain individual plaintiffs, filed amended complaints. In November 2013, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints.
Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that
asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims
asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above.
• Personal Injury Actions
A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs
developed type 2 diabetes as the result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February
2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Chantix/Champix
Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the
Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of
British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) 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. Each of these actions 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. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who
experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect
of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled
to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer
Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer Inc. should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class
members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a
national basis.
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. In December 2012, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. In April 2013, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Various Drugs: Co-Pay Programs
In July 2012, a purported class action was filed against Pfizer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In December 2013,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all entities in the U.S. and its territories that have
reimbursed patients for the purchase of certain Pfizer drugs for which co-pay programs exist or have existed. The plaintiffs allege that these
programs violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act by providing an incentive for patients to use certain
Pfizer drugs rather than less-expensive competitor products, thereby increasing the payers’ reimbursement costs. The plaintiffs also allege
that these programs constitute tortuous interference with contract. The plaintiffs seek treble damages on behalf of the putative class for their
excess reimbursement costs allegedly attributable to the co-pay programs, as well as an injunction prohibiting us from offering such programs.
Similar purported class actions have been filed against several other pharmaceutical companies.