Pfizer 2007 Annual Report Download - page 75

their entirety. In November 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Pfizer is a defendant in product liability suits, including purported
class actions, in various U.S. federal and state courts and in certain
other countries alleging personal injury as a result of the use of
Celebrex and/or Bextra. These suits include a purported class
action filed in 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York as well as actions that have been filed since late 2004.
In addition, beginning in late 2004, purported class actions have
been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal and state courts and
in certain other countries alleging consumer fraud as the result of
alleged false advertising of Celebrex and Bextra and the
withholding of information from the public regarding the alleged
safety risks associated with Celebrex and Bextra. The plaintiffs in
these consumer fraud actions seek damages in unspecified amounts
for economic loss. In September 2005, the U.S. federal product
liability and consumer fraud actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In
re Celebrex and Bextra Marketing, Sales Practices and Product
Liability Litigation MDL-1699) in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The majority of the cases involving
Celebrex are pending in the Multi-District Litigation and in
coordinated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York. In late 2007 and early 2008, the courts in both of those
actions ruled that plaintiffs failed to present reliable scientific
evidence necessary to prove that Celebrex can cause heart attacks
and strokes at the 200 mg daily dose, which is the most commonly
prescribed dose. These rulings render inadmissible certain opinions
of plaintiffs’ experts, which we believe could result in the dismissal
of many of the Celebrex cases.
In July 2005, an action was filed by the Attorney General of the
State of Louisiana in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, against Pfizer seeking to recover amounts paid by the
Louisiana Medicaid program for Celebrex and Bextra and for
medical services to treat persons allegedly injured by Celebrex or
Bextra. The action also seeks injunctive relief to prevent the sale
of Celebrex and any resumption of the sale of Bextra in Louisiana.
This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and thereafter transferred for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings to the same Multi-District Litigation referred
to in the preceding paragraph.
Beginning in late 2004, actions, including purported class and
shareholder derivative actions, have been filed in various federal
and state courts against Pfizer, Pharmacia and certain current and
former officers, directors and employees of Pfizer and Pharmacia.
These actions include: (i) purported class actions alleging that
Pfizer and certain current and former officers of Pfizer violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex
and Bextra; (ii) purported shareholder derivative actions alleging
that certain of Pfizer’s current and former officers and directors
breached fiduciary duties by causing Pfizer to misrepresent the
safety of Celebrex and, in certain of the cases, Bextra; and (iii)
purported class actions filed by persons who claim to be
participants in the Pfizer or Pharmacia Savings Plan alleging that
Pfizer and certain current and former officers, directors and
employees of Pfizer or, where applicable, Pharmacia and certain
former officers, directors and employees of Pharmacia, violated
certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and maintaining Pfizer stock as an
investment alternative when it allegedly no longer was a suitable
or prudent investment option. In June 2005, the federal securities,
fiduciary duty and ERISA actions were transferred for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc.
Securities, Derivative and “ERISA” Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In July 2007, the purported federal shareholder derivative action
alleging breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed by the court in the
Multi-District Litigation. In August 2007, the plaintiffs appealed
the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Trovan
In May 2007, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria
filed civil and criminal actions in the Federal High Court in Abuja
against Pfizer, one of our Nigerian subsidiaries, and several current
and former U.S. and Nigerian employees, including a current
Pfizer director. Also in May 2007, the Attorney General of the State
of Kano, Nigeria, filed substantially similar civil and criminal
actions in the High Court of Kano State against substantially the
same group of defendants. The federal civil action was voluntarily
withdrawn by the federal authorities in July 2007, and a new
federal civil complaint seeking substantially similar damages
against substantially the same group of defendants was filed
shortly thereafter.
All of these actions arise out of a 1996 pediatric clinical study of
Trovan, an antibiotic then in late-stage development, that was
conducted during a severe meningitis epidemic in Kano. The
actions allege, among other things, that the study was conducted
without proper government authorization and without the
informed consent of the parents or guardians of the study
participants and resulted in injury or death to a number of study
participants. In the civil actions, the federal government is seeking
more than $6 billion in damages and the Kano state government
is seeking $2.075 billion in damages for, among other things,
the costs incurred to provide treatment, compensation and
support for the alleged victims and their families; the costs of
unrelated health initiatives that failed, allegedly due to societal
misgivings attributable to the Trovan study; and general damages.
We believe that we have strong defenses in these actions.
The 1996 Trovan clinical study has also been the subject of two
civil lawsuits filed against Pfizer in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the study participants.
The District Court dismissed both cases in 2005, and those decisions
are on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Hormone-Replacement Therapy
Pfizer and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability
companies, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers,
have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits in various
federal and state courts alleging personal injury resulting from the
use of certain estrogen and progestin medications prescribed for
women to treat the symptoms of menopause. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege a variety of personal injuries, including breast cancer, stroke
and heart disease. Certain co-defendants in some of these actions
have asserted indemnification rights against Pfizer and its affiliated
companies. The cases against Pfizer and its affiliated companies
2007 Financial Report 73
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc and Subsidiary Companies