Pfizer, Inc. Summary: The original complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the safety and marketability of Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra products. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that at all times during the Class Period, Defendants were aware of strong indicators that Celebrex and Bextra, drugs known as "Cox-2 Inhibitors," posed serious undisclosed health risks to consumers, that these undisclosed health risks would limit their marketability, and that the potential financial liability Pfizer faced from the harms these drugs caused posed a serious threat to the Company's finances. Nevertheless, Defendants concealed these facts from the investing public. Toward the close of the Class Period, a series of factual revelations from several sources caused the market to gradually perceive the truth about Pfizer's Bextra and Celebrex products. For example, on November 4, 2004, the Calgary Herald reported that "Celebrex, a popular pain drug touted as the safe alternative after Vioxx was pulled from drugstore shelves, is suspected of causing at least 14 deaths and numerous heart and brain side effects." Then, on November 10, 2004, the New York Times further shocked the market by reporting on a study finding that "[t]he incidence of heart attacks and strokes among patients given Pfizer's painkiller Bextra was more than double that of those given placebos." The complaint further alleges that as a result of these and other revelations, Pfizer's share price dropped from a closing price of $29.45 on November 3, 2004 to $27.15 on November 11, 2004 -- a drop of 8%.
On June 21, 2005, the Court entered a Order from the Multidistrict Litigation Panel transferring the securities class action to be handled in Case Number 1:05-md-01688-RO, In Re: Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation.
On October 25, 2005, the Court entered the Opinion and Order # 92319 signed by Judge Richard Owen granting the motion to appoint the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana as lead plaintiff in the securities action and designating Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as lead counsel. On February 16, 2006, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 1, 2008, the Court entered the Opinion and Order signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Counts II, IV, V, and VI, with leave to re-plead all Counts except for Count VI, and is denied in all other respects.
According to a press release dated September 5, 2008, the court overseeing a putative securities class action against Pfizer Inc. has rejected the defendants' request for reconsideration of its prior ruling on a motion to dismiss, holding that Pfizer's bid to revisit issues the court already ruled on would constitute an improper second bite at the apple. On Thursday, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Pfizer's motion for reconsideration of a July 1 order on the defendants' dismissal bid and also denied Pfizer's request that the court certify two issues for interlocutory appeal. Pfizer's motion for reconsideration centered on the July opinion that granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint.
Since September 2008, the parties have been engaged in discovery proceedings. On March 26, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class.
On March 22, 2012, the court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 1, 2008 Opinion and Order.
On March 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint.
On March 28, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
SIC Code: 2834
Industry: Major Drugs
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top