Merck Settles Vioxx Suits for $4.85 Billion
Merck & Co. Inc. agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits over heart attacks and strokes related to the pain medication Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in 2004.
November 09, 2007 at 09:32 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Merck & Co. Inc. agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits over heart attacks and strokes related to the pain medication Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in 2004. The agreement, made Nov. 9 between Merck and law firms representing Vioxx plaintiffs, will go forward only if 85 percent of claimants accept the settlement by March 2008.
The settlement comes after Merck brought 16 Vioxx suits to trial, winning 11, losing five and wracking up more than $1.2 billion in legal fees, according to the Wall Street Journal. Previously Kenneth Frazier, formerly general counsel and now president of Merck's Global Human Health division, had announced the company would fight each Vioxx case individually.
“This agreement is the product of our defense strategy in the United States during the past three years and is consistent with our commitment to defend each claim individually through rigorous scientific scrutiny,” said Bruce N. Kuhlik, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, in a statement. “Under the agreement, there will be an orderly, documented and objective process to examine individual claims to determine if they qualify for payment. This agreement also makes sense for the Company because since 2004, we have reserved approximately $1.9 billion for defending Vioxx litigation and, absent this agreement, could anticipate that the litigation might stretch on for years.”
Kuhlik went on to say the time was right for an agreement. “Recent court rulings confirmed that the window has closed for filing suits in a number of states, consistent with our view that statutes of limitations have expired in almost every state,” he said.
The settlement was entered Nov. 9 in U.S. District Court in Louisiana, New Jersey Superior Court and Los Angeles Superior Court. The resolution encompasses the majority of Vioxx cases that have been in litigation throughout the country, according to plaintiffs' firm Seeger Weiss.
The settlement comes after Merck brought 16 Vioxx suits to trial, winning 11, losing five and wracking up more than $1.2 billion in legal fees, according to the Wall Street Journal. Previously Kenneth Frazier, formerly general counsel and now president of Merck's Global Human Health division, had announced the company would fight each Vioxx case individually.
“This agreement is the product of our defense strategy in the United States during the past three years and is consistent with our commitment to defend each claim individually through rigorous scientific scrutiny,” said Bruce N. Kuhlik, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, in a statement. “Under the agreement, there will be an orderly, documented and objective process to examine individual claims to determine if they qualify for payment. This agreement also makes sense for the Company because since 2004, we have reserved approximately $1.9 billion for defending Vioxx litigation and, absent this agreement, could anticipate that the litigation might stretch on for years.”
Kuhlik went on to say the time was right for an agreement. “Recent court rulings confirmed that the window has closed for filing suits in a number of states, consistent with our view that statutes of limitations have expired in almost every state,” he said.
The settlement was entered Nov. 9 in U.S. District Court in Louisiana, New Jersey Superior Court and Los Angeles Superior Court. The resolution encompasses the majority of Vioxx cases that have been in litigation throughout the country, according to plaintiffs' firm
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250