Merck and Co. agrees to $27.7 million payout for multiple Fosamax lawsuits
Merck has agreed to pay $27.7 million to settle hundreds of lawsuits claiming Fosamax caused osteonecrosis of the jaw.
December 11, 2013 at 05:06 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Over the past year, Merck & Co. has had a good run in fighting off plaintiffs saying the company's osteoporosis drug Fosamax caused health problems—claiming victory in five of the seven cases to go to trial. But, the company's victory has been knocked down by recent multidistrict litigation.
Merck has agreed to pay $27.7 million to settle hundreds of lawsuits claiming Fosamax caused osteonecrosis of the jaw. The company made the offer in a New York court this week in order to lay to rest around 1,200 lawsuits pending across the country.
If the settlement is approved by a judge it would clear a large portion of the 5,255 product liability cases Merck is facing, with the remainder relating to problems with other bone injuries such as femoral fractures. The agreement includes the claims of over 1,200 plaintiffs in both federal and state court. It comes after U.S. District Judge John Keenan ordered the parties to transfer 200 cases per month out of the multidistrict litigation and into their home courts, though the transfer has not yet occurred.
Since the litigation started in 2005, the company was hit with verdicts of $285,000 and $8 million, though Judge Keenan later slashed the larger award to $1.5 million.
“We are pleased with this resolution of the ONJ litigation, and we continue to be committed to the vigorous defense of these cases,” a spokesperson for Merck said in a statement. “Above all, we will continue to always act in the best interest of patients. We remain confident in the efficacy and safety profile of Fosamax, which was developed and studied carefully by dedicated Merck scientists.”
According to Merck, the agreement is contingent on a 100 percent participation rate. Plaintiffs counsel must accept the deal's terms by January 13 and deliver releases for 100 percent of the plaintiffs by March 31. If they do not do so, Merck has the right to terminate the agreement. Additionally, plaintiffs must document that they have osteonecrosis of the jaw after using Fosamax.
After the final trial concluded earlier this year, the parties discussed how to conclude the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs steering committee proposed that Judge Keenan send 300 cases to their home courts every four months, an average of 75 cases a month. Merck proposed conducting case-specific fact discovery in the 100 oldest cases over a six-month period before transfers would occur.
Ultimately, Judge Keenan decided to transfer the cases out of the litigation at a faster pace than proposed by the plaintiffs. The first transfers were originally scheduled to take place November 1, but the judge delayed the deadline at the plaintiffs' request.
Fosamax was once a huge earner for Merck, bringing in sales of $3 billion at its peak in 2007 before losing patent protection in 2008.
For more news on pharmaceutical lawsuits, check out the following:
Over the past year,
Merck has agreed to pay $27.7 million to settle hundreds of lawsuits claiming Fosamax caused osteonecrosis of the jaw. The company made the offer in a
If the settlement is approved by a judge it would clear a large portion of the 5,255 product liability cases Merck is facing, with the remainder relating to problems with other bone injuries such as femoral fractures. The agreement includes the claims of over 1,200 plaintiffs in both federal and state court. It comes after U.S. District Judge John Keenan ordered the parties to transfer 200 cases per month out of the multidistrict litigation and into their home courts, though the transfer has not yet occurred.
Since the litigation started in 2005, the company was hit with verdicts of $285,000 and $8 million, though Judge Keenan later slashed the larger award to $1.5 million.
“We are pleased with this resolution of the ONJ litigation, and we continue to be committed to the vigorous defense of these cases,” a spokesperson for Merck said in a statement. “Above all, we will continue to always act in the best interest of patients. We remain confident in the efficacy and safety profile of Fosamax, which was developed and studied carefully by dedicated Merck scientists.”
According to Merck, the agreement is contingent on a 100 percent participation rate. Plaintiffs counsel must accept the deal's terms by January 13 and deliver releases for 100 percent of the plaintiffs by March 31. If they do not do so, Merck has the right to terminate the agreement. Additionally, plaintiffs must document that they have osteonecrosis of the jaw after using Fosamax.
After the final trial concluded earlier this year, the parties discussed how to conclude the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs steering committee proposed that Judge Keenan send 300 cases to their home courts every four months, an average of 75 cases a month. Merck proposed conducting case-specific fact discovery in the 100 oldest cases over a six-month period before transfers would occur.
Ultimately, Judge Keenan decided to transfer the cases out of the litigation at a faster pace than proposed by the plaintiffs. The first transfers were originally scheduled to take place November 1, but the judge delayed the deadline at the plaintiffs' request.
Fosamax was once a huge earner for Merck, bringing in sales of $3 billion at its peak in 2007 before losing patent protection in 2008.
For more news on pharmaceutical lawsuits, check out the following:
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 AllCoinbase 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
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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