Pfizer 2011 Annual Report Download - page 105

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
•Personal Injury Actions in the U.S. and Certain Other Countries
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.
In addition, purported class actions have been filed against us in various Canadian provincial courts alleging claims arising from the
promotion, sale and labeling of Neurontin and generic gabapentin. In a proceeding pending in Ontario, Canada, the court certified a
class consisting of all persons in Canada who purchased and ingested Neurontin prior to August 2004. The plaintiffs claim that
Pfizer failed to provide adequate warning of the alleged risks of personal injury associated with Neurontin.
•Antitrust Action in the U.S.
In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidates four actions, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who
purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during the period from December 11, 2002 to August 31, 2008 and
who also purchased generic gabapentin after it became available. The complaints allege that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged
in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act that included, among other things, submitting patents for listing in the
Orange Book and prosecuting and enforcing certain patents relating to Neurontin, as well as engaging in off-label marketing of
Neurontin. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, which may be subject to trebling.
Lipitor
•Whistleblower Action
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 off-label promotion of
Lipitor in violation of the Federal Civil False Claims Act and the false claims acts of certain states, and he 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 the anti-retaliation
provisions of applicable federal and New York law, and he seeks damages and the reinstatement of his employment. In 2009, the
court dismissed without prejudice the off-label promotion claims and, in 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint containing
off-label promotion allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations in the original complaint.
•Antitrust Actions
Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal and state courts against Pfizer,
certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, among others. The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or
statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of
the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement
pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a
generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the federal actions, the procurement
and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the
putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In
addition, an individual action by several California pharmacies was filed in January 2012 in state court in California against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief for the plaintiff pharmacies that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above.
Chantix/Champix
A number of individual lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging suicide, attempted suicide and
other personal injuries as a result of the purported ingesting of Chantix, as well as economic loss. Plaintiffs in these actions seek
compensatory and punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Chantix. In October 2009, the federal
cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products
Liability Litigation MDL-2092) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto
Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and
the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have
purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under
Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class,
seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed pending
the decision regarding class certification in the Ontario action.
104 2011 Financial Report