Pfizer 2007 Annual Report Download - page 76

74 2007 Financial Report
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc and Subsidiary Companies
involve the products femhrt (which Pfizer divested in 2003), Activella
and Vagifem (which are Novo Nordisk products that were marketed
by a Pfizer affiliate from 2000 to 2004), and Provera, Ogen, Depo-
Estradiol, Estring and generic MPA, all of which remain approved
by the FDA for use in the treatment of menopause. The federal cases
have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation
MDL-1507) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
This litigation originally included both individual actions as well
as various purported nationwide and statewide class actions.
However, as a result of the voluntary dismissal 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 and a few purported statewide class actions.
Viagra
A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been
filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that
Viagra causes certain types of visual injuries. The plaintiffs in the
purported class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain
statewide classes of Viagra users. All of the actions seek damages
for personal injury, and the purported class actions also seek
medical monitoring. In January 2006, the federal cases were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-
District Litigation (In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation MDL-
1724) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Zoloft
A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against us in
various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a
result of the purported ingesting of Zoloft.
Mirapex
A number of individual lawsuits seeking damages have been filed
against Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(BIPI) in various U.S. federal and state courts and one purported class
action has been filed in Canada alleging that Mirapex, a treatment
for Parkinson’s disease, causes certain impulse-control disorders. We
co-promoted Mirapex with BIPI until May 2005 but, as a result of
the sale of our interests in this product to BIPI, we no longer
manufacture or sell Mirapex. In June 2007, all of the U.S. federal
cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation
MDL-1836) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
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 payors, 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 October 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.
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 payors who allegedly purchased
or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for “off-
label” uses from 1994 through 2004. The court indicated that it
would allow plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class
certification under certain circumstances. In December 2007,
plaintiffs filed such a motion, which we intend to oppose.
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 plaintiffs seek
a refund of amounts paid by class members for Neurontin.
Plaintiffs also are seeking certification of a statewide class of
Neurontin purchasers in an action pending in Kansas state court.
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 personal injury, suicide and attempted suicide 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
Beginning in September 2005, three purported nationwide class
actions were filed against us in various federal courts alleging
claims relating to the promotion of Lipitor. In January 2006, two
of the actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In the
remaining action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the plaintiffs alleged that the
Company engaged in false and misleading advertising in violation
of state consumer protection laws by allegedly promoting Lipitor
for the prevention of heart disease in women (regardless of age)
and men over age 55 who in each case had no history of heart
disease or diabetes. The action sought monetary and injunctive
relief, including treble damages. Effective January 9, 2008, this
action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice without any
payment by the Company. In addition, in 2005, a purported class
action on behalf of residents of the Province of Quebec was filed
against us in Canada that asserts claims under Canadian law and
seeks relief substantially similar to the claims that had been
asserted and the relief that had been sought in the U.S. action.
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. The
complaint in the remaining action, which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges 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