Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After three years of sticking to a hard-line policy of trying every one of the approximate 26,600 suits lodged over its painkiller Vioxx, Merck & Co. Inc. announced on Nov. 9 that it had come to an agreement that could settle 95% of them.
By the terms of the deal, the Whitehouse Station drug maker will pay $4.85 billion into a settlement fund for qualifying claimants ' generally those who can prove they suffered heart attacks or ischemic strokes in close proximity to Vioxx use.
Merck withdrew Vioxx in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks in some patients. Since then, Merck has been barraged with tens of thousands of suits by or on behalf of former users, only a handful of which have gone to trial.
The settlement would have the greatest impact in New Jersey, where 16,400 Vioxx cases are pending ' 61% of the national total.
The agreement was forged during 11 months of talks among Merck lawyers, a multidistrict-litigation plaintiffs' steering committee and state and federal judges coordinating Vioxx litigation: U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, California Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney and Texas County Court Judge Randy Wilson.
Merck said the settlement discussions were pressed by the judges, who were about to undertake a new round of trials early next year.
The settlement applies only to claims filed on or before Nov. 8 or for which the statute of limitations has tolled as of that date. It applies only to claimants who are U.S. legal residents or who allege their Vioxx-related injuries occurred in this country.
To qualify, claimants must satisfy three conditions:
Each claim will be evaluated individually by Merck claims-resolution process administrators, who will decide the amount each claimant will recover based on a numerical point system that will consider age, type of injury, level of severity, length of use and risk factors. There will be deductions for risk factors, such as smoking and obesity.
Payments to claimants could begin as early as next August and will be paid over a period of time.
Lawyers on federal and state Vioxx plaintiffs' steering committees and lawyers who have tried Vioxx cases in coordinated proceedings must recommend enrollment to 100% of their clients who allege an MI or ischemic stroke.
For the settlement to take effect, enrollment by March 1 must include at least 85% of all claimants in four categories:
The parties to the settlement agree to seek court orders requiring plaintiffs' attorneys to promptly register all their Vioxx claims, whether filed or tolled, and to identify the alleged injury, in order to establish the universe of all existing claims in the United States.
Since the Vioxx litigation began, Merck has insisted on trying every case individually to expose the weaknesses of each claim, both as to Vioxx causation of health problems and as to other risk factors that may have contributed to cardiovascular problems.
To date, 17 cases have been tried to verdict, with juries deciding for Merck 12 times and for plaintiffs five times. One Merck verdict was set aside by the court and has not been retried, while another Merck verdict was set aside and retried, leading to one of the five plaintiff verdicts. There have been two unresolved mistrials.
Some of the plaintiffs' verdicts were in the millions, including New Jersey awards of $13.5 million in 2006 and $47.5 million last March in cases before Higbee in Atlantic County. But Merck appealed all the cases it lost and has paid nothing while the appeals are pending.
Merck says it insisted on trying the cases individually to get a sense of how to value all the pending claims. “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,” Merck senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Kuhlik said in a statement on Nov. 9. “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.”
Plaintiffs' lawyers are generally pleased with the settlement. “This was simply the right thing to do, and we're grateful that the people at Merck recognized that it was the right thing to do,” says Houston plaintiffs' lawyer W. Mark Lanier, who won a $253 million Texas jury award against Merck that was reduced to $26 million on appeal.
Lawyers in the overall litigation stand to earn more than $2 billion in attorneys' fees. In New Jersey, attorneys will receive fees at one third of the first $1 million minus the costs of the case, 30% of the next $500,000 (minus costs) and 25 percent of the next $500,000 (minus costs), says David Jacoby of Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley of Cherry Hill, NJ, and Philadelphia, who is co-liaison counsel for the New Jersey cases. Awards that exceed $2 million must go before a judge, he says.
But plaintiffs' lawyers' one worry is that the amount of settlement money is fixed. Separate funds will be created in the amount of $4 billion for MI claims and $850 million for ischemic stroke claims. The funds could be diminished or exhausted depending on the number of qualified claimants who enroll.
Merck says that about 26,600 Vioxx suits were filed on or before Sept. 30. They involve about 47,000 plaintiff groups alleging personal injury. If all 47,000 plaintiff groups enroll in the settlement process, the average gross award would be about $100,000.
“We can't figure out awards at this time to our clients, but I'm conferencing with co-counsel and I'm cautiously optimistic,” says plaintiffs' lawyer Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, NJ.
'What's unusual about this settlement is that no one is talking about how much clients are getting paid,” says Samuel Davis, of Davis, Saperstein & Salomon in Teaneck, who represents 100 plaintiffs. “They don't know because no one can figure out how much it will be.”
'In a week or two we'll have a better sense of what all this means,” says Moshe Horn of New York's Seeger Weiss, the firm that served as co-lead counsel for Vioxx cases in federal court.
In the meantime, plaintiffs who opt out of or do not fall within the agreement must proceed with their cases with dispatch. Judges Fallon, Higbee and Chaney have issued case management orders that will require those plaintiffs to provide certified copies of their medical and pharmacy records, as well as expert causation opinions, in a timely fashion.
The window is closing on Vioxx suits. The drug has now been off the market for three years, and 42 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have statutes of limitations of three years or less. Higbee and Fallon have issued orders in cases from New Jersey and eight other jurisdictions that the statutory period for Vioxx personal injury claims has passed.
After three years of sticking to a hard-line policy of trying every one of the approximate 26,600 suits lodged over its painkiller Vioxx,
By the terms of the deal, the Whitehouse Station drug maker will pay $4.85 billion into a settlement fund for qualifying claimants ' generally those who can prove they suffered heart attacks or ischemic strokes in close proximity to Vioxx use.
Merck withdrew Vioxx in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks in some patients. Since then, Merck has been barraged with tens of thousands of suits by or on behalf of former users, only a handful of which have gone to trial.
The settlement would have the greatest impact in New Jersey, where 16,400 Vioxx cases are pending ' 61% of the national total.
The agreement was forged during 11 months of talks among Merck lawyers, a multidistrict-litigation plaintiffs' steering committee and state and federal judges coordinating Vioxx litigation: U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, California Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney and Texas County Court Judge Randy Wilson.
Merck said the settlement discussions were pressed by the judges, who were about to undertake a new round of trials early next year.
The settlement applies only to claims filed on or before Nov. 8 or for which the statute of limitations has tolled as of that date. It applies only to claimants who are U.S. legal residents or who allege their Vioxx-related injuries occurred in this country.
To qualify, claimants must satisfy three conditions:
Each claim will be evaluated individually by Merck claims-resolution process administrators, who will decide the amount each claimant will recover based on a numerical point system that will consider age, type of injury, level of severity, length of use and risk factors. There will be deductions for risk factors, such as smoking and obesity.
Payments to claimants could begin as early as next August and will be paid over a period of time.
Lawyers on federal and state Vioxx plaintiffs' steering committees and lawyers who have tried Vioxx cases in coordinated proceedings must recommend enrollment to 100% of their clients who allege an MI or ischemic stroke.
For the settlement to take effect, enrollment by March 1 must include at least 85% of all claimants in four categories:
The parties to the settlement agree to seek court orders requiring plaintiffs' attorneys to promptly register all their Vioxx claims, whether filed or tolled, and to identify the alleged injury, in order to establish the universe of all existing claims in the United States.
Since the Vioxx litigation began, Merck has insisted on trying every case individually to expose the weaknesses of each claim, both as to Vioxx causation of health problems and as to other risk factors that may have contributed to cardiovascular problems.
To date, 17 cases have been tried to verdict, with juries deciding for Merck 12 times and for plaintiffs five times. One Merck verdict was set aside by the court and has not been retried, while another Merck verdict was set aside and retried, leading to one of the five plaintiff verdicts. There have been two unresolved mistrials.
Some of the plaintiffs' verdicts were in the millions, including New Jersey awards of $13.5 million in 2006 and $47.5 million last March in cases before Higbee in Atlantic County. But Merck appealed all the cases it lost and has paid nothing while the appeals are pending.
Merck says it insisted on trying the cases individually to get a sense of how to value all the pending claims. “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,” Merck senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Kuhlik said in a statement on Nov. 9. “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.”
Plaintiffs' lawyers are generally pleased with the settlement. “This was simply the right thing to do, and we're grateful that the people at Merck recognized that it was the right thing to do,” says Houston plaintiffs' lawyer W. Mark Lanier, who won a $253 million Texas jury award against Merck that was reduced to $26 million on appeal.
Lawyers in the overall litigation stand to earn more than $2 billion in attorneys' fees. In New Jersey, attorneys will receive fees at one third of the first $1 million minus the costs of the case, 30% of the next $500,000 (minus costs) and 25 percent of the next $500,000 (minus costs), says David Jacoby of Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley of Cherry Hill, NJ, and Philadelphia, who is co-liaison counsel for the New Jersey cases. Awards that exceed $2 million must go before a judge, he says.
But plaintiffs' lawyers' one worry is that the amount of settlement money is fixed. Separate funds will be created in the amount of $4 billion for MI claims and $850 million for ischemic stroke claims. The funds could be diminished or exhausted depending on the number of qualified claimants who enroll.
Merck says that about 26,600 Vioxx suits were filed on or before Sept. 30. They involve about 47,000 plaintiff groups alleging personal injury. If all 47,000 plaintiff groups enroll in the settlement process, the average gross award would be about $100,000.
“We can't figure out awards at this time to our clients, but I'm conferencing with co-counsel and I'm cautiously optimistic,” says plaintiffs' lawyer Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, NJ.
'What's unusual about this settlement is that no one is talking about how much clients are getting paid,” says Samuel Davis, of
'In a week or two we'll have a better sense of what all this means,” says Moshe Horn of
In the meantime, plaintiffs who opt out of or do not fall within the agreement must proceed with their cases with dispatch. Judges Fallon, Higbee and Chaney have issued case management orders that will require those plaintiffs to provide certified copies of their medical and pharmacy records, as well as expert causation opinions, in a timely fashion.
The window is closing on Vioxx suits. The drug has now been off the market for three years, and 42 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have statutes of limitations of three years or less. Higbee and Fallon have issued orders in cases from New Jersey and eight other jurisdictions that the statutory period for Vioxx personal injury claims has passed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.