Pfizer 2009 Annual Report Download - page 95

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
Beginning in late 2004, actions, including purported class actions, have been filed in various federal and state courts against Pfizer,
Pharmacia and certain current and former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer and Pharmacia. These actions include
(i) purported class actions alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers of Pfizer violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra and (ii) purported class actions filed by persons who claim to be participants in
the Pfizer or Pharmacia Savings Plan alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer
or, where applicable, Pharmacia and certain former officers, directors and employees of Pharmacia, violated certain provisions of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and maintaining Pfizer stock as an investment
alternative when it allegedly no longer was a suitable or prudent investment option. In June 2005, the federal securities and ERISA
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.
•Securities Action in New Jersey
In 2003, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Pharmacia, Pfizer and certain former officers of Pharmacia. The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by misrepresenting the data from a study concerning the gastrointestinal effects of Celebrex. These cases were consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the District of New Jersey (Alaska Electrical Pension Fund et al. v. Pharmacia Corporation et al.). In
January 2007, the court certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Pharmacia securities from April 17, 2000 through
February 6, 2001 and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pharmacia’s securities allegedly attributable to the
misrepresentations. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. In October 2007, the court granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. In November 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. In January 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendants and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Third Circuit also held that the District Court
erred in determining that the class period ended on February 6, 2001, and directed that the class period end on August 5, 2001. In
June 2009, the District Court stayed proceedings in the case pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to
defendants’ petition for certiorari seeking reversal of the Third Circuit’s decision, as well as the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
in a case involving another company that presents questions of law and fact that are similar to those in this case.
•Other
Pfizer and several predecessor and affiliated companies, including Monsanto Company (Monsanto), are defendants in an action
brought by Brigham Young University (BYU) and a BYU professor in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah alleging, among
other things, breach by Monsanto of a 1991 research agreement with BYU. Plaintiffs claim that research under that agreement led to
the discovery of Celebrex and that, as a result, they are entitled to a share of the profits from Celebrex sales. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, compensatory and punitive damages.
Bextra and Certain Other Drugs
Beginning in September 2009, a number of shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against certain current and former
Pfizer officers and directors. Pfizer is named as a nominal defendant. These actions allege that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties by causing or allowing Pfizer to engage in off-label promotion of certain drugs, including Bextra. Damages in
unspecified amounts are sought on behalf of Pfizer. In November 2009, the federal cases were consolidated in the Southern District
of New York (In re Pfizer Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation).
Various Drugs
In September 2009, a number of purported nationwide class actions were filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging off-label promotion of certain drugs. In
each case, the plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class, including the recovery of amounts paid
for the drugs, treble damages and punitive damages.
Hormone-Replacement Therapy
Pfizer and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability companies, including Wyeth, along with several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of certain estrogen and progestin medications primarily prescribed for women to treat the
symptoms of menopause. Plaintiffs in these suits allege a variety of personal injuries, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, stroke
and heart disease. Certain co-defendants in some of these actions have asserted indemnification rights against Pfizer and its
affiliated companies. The cases against Pfizer and its affiliated companies involve one or more of the following products, all of which
remain approved by the FDA: 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); Premarin, Prempro, Aygestin, Cycrin and Premphase (which are legacy
Wyeth products); and Provera, Ogen, Depo-Estradiol, Estring and generic MPA (which are legacy Pharmacia & Upjohn products).
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. Certain of the federal cases have been
remanded to their respective District Courts for further proceedings, including, if necessary, trial.
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.
2009 Financial Report 93