Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<B><I>BREAKING NEWS:</b></i> <b>Merck Settles Vioxx Case for $950 Million</b>
Merck & Co., Inc. became the latest healthcare company to strike a major settlement with the Justice Department on Nov. 22, agreeing to pay $950 million to resolve criminal and civil charges stemming from its marketing of the painkiller Vioxx.
As part of the settlement, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, the company's U.S. unit, will plead guilty in Boston federal district court to a single misdemeanor count of violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and will pay a $321.6 million criminal fine. Merck will also pay nearly $628.3 million to settle civil allegations that it marketed Vioxx for off-label uses and made false statements about the drug's safety. (The criminal information is here, and the settlement agreement is here.)
Theodore Wells Jr. of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Jack Cinquegrana of Choate Hall & Stewart represented Merck. Wells did not respond to a request for comment, and Cinquegrana referred a request for comment to his client.
“We believe that Merck acted responsibly and in good faith in connection with the conduct at issue in these civil settlement agreements, including activities concerning the safety profile of Vioxx,” Merck general counsel Bruce Kuhlik said in a statement. The settlement also resolves claims lodged by 43 states and
the District of Columbia. The states of Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Utah are continuing to press related claims, according to Merck.
Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in 2004, and in 2007 it agreed to settle civil suits over the drug's safety for $4.85 billion. In anticipation of the settlement, the company recorded a $950 million charge in October 2010.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?