Pfizer 2009 Annual Report Download - page 96

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
Pfizer and its affiliated companies, including Wyeth, have prevailed in many of the hormone-replacement therapy actions that have
been resolved to date, whether by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, summary judgment, defense verdict or judgment
notwithstanding the verdict; a number of these cases have been appealed by the plaintiffs. Certain other hormone-replacement
therapy actions have resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs and have included the award of compensatory and, in some instances,
punitive damages; each of these cases has been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies. Some of the cases that had
been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies or by the plaintiffs have been sent back by the appellate courts to their
respective trial courts for further proceedings, and certain other cases have been settled by the parties in advance of trial. Trials of
additional hormone-replacement therapy actions are scheduled for 2010.
Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies also have received inquiries from various federal and state agencies and officials relating to the
marketing of their hormone-replacement products. In November 2008, the State of Nevada filed an action against Pfizer,
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Wyeth in state court in Nevada alleging that they had engaged in deceptive marketing of their
respective hormone-replacement therapy medications in Nevada in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The
action seeks monetary relief, including civil penalties and treble damages.
Viagra
A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that
Viagra causes certain types of visual injuries. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain
statewide classes of Viagra users. All of the actions seek damages for personal injury, and the purported class actions also seek
medical monitoring. In January 2006, the federal cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Viagra Products Liability Litigation MDL-1724) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Zoloft and Effexor
A number of individual lawsuits, as well as a multi-plaintiff lawsuit with respect to Effexor, have been filed against us and/or our
subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingesting of Zoloft or Effexor.
Neurontin
A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging
claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide
and certain statewide classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-
party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications other than
those included in the product labeling approved by the FDA. In October 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts, including
individual actions as well as purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. Purported class actions also have been filed against us in various Canadian provincial courts alleging
claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin and generic gabapentin.
In the Multi-District Litigation, in August 2007, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide class of all
consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label uses
from 1994 through 2004. In December 2007, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. In May 2009, the court denied
plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration.
In June 2007, a Pennsylvania state court certified a class of all individuals in Pennsylvania who allegedly purchased Neurontin for
off-label uses since 1995. The court subsequently expanded the class to include purchasers of generic gabapentin. However, in
February 2009, the court determined that class certification was not appropriate and entered an order decertifying the class. The
plaintiffs appealed and, in January 2010, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order decertifying the class. Other plaintiffs are
seeking certification of statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and
Oklahoma. State courts in New York and New Mexico have declined to certify statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers.
A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against us in various U.S. federal and state courts and in certain other countries
alleging suicide, attempted suicide and other personal injuries as a result of the purported ingesting of Neurontin. Certain of the U.S.
federal actions have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to the same Multi-District Litigation referred to in the first
paragraph of this section.
Lipitor
In 2006, a purported class action was filed against us alleging, among other things, violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and certain state consumer fraud statutes primarily related to the promotion of Lipitor. In 2008, the
action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2009, the court dismissed the
action, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend certain of their claims. In November 2009, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of
the action, with prejudice.
In 2004, a former employee filed a whistleblower action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
complaint remained under seal until September 2007, at which time the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York declined
to intervene in the case. We were served with the complaint in December 2007. Plaintiff alleges that, through patient and medical
education programs, written materials and other actions aimed at doctors, consumers, payers and investors, the Company promoted
Lipitor for use by certain patients contrary to national cholesterol guidelines that plaintiff claims are a part of the labeled indications
for the product. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Civil False Claims Act and the false claims acts of certain states and seeks
treble damages and civil penalties on behalf of the federal government and the specified states as the result of their purchase, or
reimbursement of patients for the purchase, of Lipitor allegedly for such off-label uses. Plaintiff also seeks compensation as a
whistleblower under those federal and state statutes. In addition, plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated, in violation of
94 2009 Financial Report