Login
Subscribe
Most of us are certainly disgusted with the recent events taking place in Washington concerning the budget deficit, now and in the future. But look at the giant pharmaceutical company Merck.
As Worst Pills, Best Pills News readers know, we warned you not to use the heavily promoted pain medicine VIOXX years before it was removed from the market in 2004. Until shortly before the demise of this deadly drug, however, Merck had publicly argued that the apparent increased risk of heart attacks — in ...
Most of us are certainly disgusted with the recent events taking place in Washington concerning the budget deficit, now and in the future. But look at the giant pharmaceutical company Merck.
As Worst Pills, Best Pills News readers know, we warned you not to use the heavily promoted pain medicine VIOXX years before it was removed from the market in 2004. Until shortly before the demise of this deadly drug, however, Merck had publicly argued that the apparent increased risk of heart attacks — in comparison to adverse effects when using naproxen, the ingredient in ALEVE — was not due to the heart dangers of VIOXX but rather to the heart-protective properties of naproxen.
Because of the company’s resistance to admitting any problem, Merck investors sought billions of dollars in damages from Merck. They filed the first of several securities lawsuits against the company in November 2003, alleging that they were misled because Merck downplayed the significance of clinical-trial results showing that patients taking VIOXX faced an increased risk of heart attack. This alleged deception, according to the investors, caused them to pay inflated prices for Merck’s stock, which lost billions of dollars in value after the 2004 market withdrawal.
Merck, on the other hand, argued, in a case that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, that investors should have suspected the problem after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent Merck a warning letter in September 2001 alleging that the company misrepresented the safety profile of VIOXX by minimizing the drug’s potential to increase a patient’s risk of heart attack.
The main issue before the court, then, was when investors should have known that there was a possible VIOXX fraud and whether they should have filed suit earlier. Investors seeking to file suit have a statute of limitations of within two years of the time they should have suspected a fraud.
During the Supreme Court argument, Justice Stephen Breyer said Merck’s position, in effect, would require plaintiffs to file lawsuits before having enough evidence to back them up. “That doesn’t make sense to me,” he said.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the FDA letter demonstrated only that Merck had made misrepresentations, not that it knowingly committed fraud.
Justice sometimes occurs in Washington, and in April 2010, about five months after the Supreme Court heard the case, it ruled unanimously that the securities fraud lawsuit was not barred by the statute of limitations as to when the plaintiffs needed to file the lawsuit.
