Zicam Maker Investor Lawsuit Headed to Supreme Court
The drug company's challenge to a 2004 investor lawsuit will be heard this fall.
June 14, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When reports started popping up a few years back that some users of Zicam Cold Remedy claimed the drug led them to lose their sense of smell, it made big news. But some investors in Matrixx, Zicam's manufacturer, felt they learned of the alleged side effect a little too late. Now Matrixx's challenge to the investors' 2004 lawsuit will have its day in court.
The Supreme Court granted cert Monday in Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano. Matrixx petitioned for cert after the 9th Circuit revived the suit in 2009. Matrixx claims that if investors were to win this suit, it would have a chilling effect on the drug industry because companies would be forced to disclose even a few adverse reactions to a drug.
The investors who filed the original suit, on the other hand, claim Matrixx continued to tout the benefits of Zicam even though the company received 12 reports of bad reactions related to loss of smell between 1999 and 2003. Those positive reports allegedly led to an inflated price for Matrixx's stock.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter in June 2009 that said Zicam could pose a health-risk to its users. Matrixx responded to the letter by recalling Zicam from the market.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case this fall.
When reports started popping up a few years back that some users of Zicam Cold Remedy claimed the drug led them to lose their sense of smell, it made big news. But some investors in Matrixx, Zicam's manufacturer, felt they learned of the alleged side effect a little too late. Now Matrixx's challenge to the investors' 2004 lawsuit will have its day in court.
The Supreme Court granted cert Monday in Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano. Matrixx petitioned for cert after the 9th Circuit revived the suit in 2009. Matrixx claims that if investors were to win this suit, it would have a chilling effect on the drug industry because companies would be forced to disclose even a few adverse reactions to a drug.
The investors who filed the original suit, on the other hand, claim Matrixx continued to tout the benefits of Zicam even though the company received 12 reports of bad reactions related to loss of smell between 1999 and 2003. Those positive reports allegedly led to an inflated price for Matrixx's stock.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter in June 2009 that said Zicam could pose a health-risk to its users. Matrixx responded to the letter by recalling Zicam from the market.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case this fall.
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
© 2025 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 AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
- 2Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
- 3529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank
- 4Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
- 5Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
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