A major new lawsuit filed against Merck alleges that the pharmaceutical company cheated consumers by using fraudulent publication to delay generic drug entry. In 2011, Merck paid Elsevier, a medical publishing company, $24 million to publish an erroneous journal. While the journal appeared to be peer-reviewed, it routinely reprinted Merck-friendly articles without disclosing the fact that the company had paid to publish the articles.
- 1 In a recent decision, the U.S. Justice Department agreed to settle two whistleblower suits against Merck.
- 1.1 During the disaster, Merck turned to its insurance providers. Its property insurance policies covered $1.75 billion in catastrophic risks.
- 1.2 The company’s monopolistic practices led to the emergence of a new class of lawsuits against the company.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Justice Department agreed to settle two whistleblower suits against Merck.
In the cases, the company knowingly promoted expensive Merck drugs while offering cheaper alternatives. The companies agreed to pay $137 million to resolve the claims and settle the case. In 2011, Schering-Plough settled a case involving its illegal promotion of a generic alternative to its heart medication. The company agreed to settle the suit in 2015.
Merck & Co. is facing new competition in the market for the next-generation pneumococcal vaccine. The lawsuit claims that a former high-level Merck employee leaked trade secrets to Pfizer, which is launching the same product. The new variant, called M-Petya, will target 15 strains of the disease. Meanwhile, the drugmaker is likely to face scrutiny from insurers.
During the disaster, Merck turned to its insurance providers. Its property insurance policies covered $1.75 billion in catastrophic risks.
When the hurricane hit, the insurance companies refused to cover the damage. The company sued its insurers for breach of contract, claiming it lost $1.3 billion. A recent reversal of the decision is expected. With the case on the line, insurers are likely to probe Merck’s defenses against NotPetya-like attacks.
The case against Merck has received considerable attention in the past few years. In addition to the lawsuit against Merck, two dozen state attorneys general have also filed similar suits against the pharmaceutical company. A recent FTC report estimated that pay-for-delay schemes cost consumers $3.5 billion a year. However, it has not released any new information regarding the costs associated with these lawsuits. There have been several other similar lawsuits filed against Merck & Co.
In the current Merck lawsuit, Merck is being sued by Actavis subsidiary Warner Chilcott in Delaware over its alleged attempts to sell generic NuvaRing before its patent expires.
It is worth noting that NuvaRing had $490 million in sales through the third quarter of this year. These figures are indicative of the ongoing battle between Merck and Actavis. Apotex will not be able to pursue the lawsuits in the absence of a favorable ruling.
The case is about a pharmaceutical company that cheated patients by promoting its drugs for unapproved uses. A recent Pfizer settlement outlined a settlement of the pink eye drug promotion case against Merck. Despite a settlement agreement, the lawsuit was settled on a confidential basis. However, it has yet to resolve the claims. The plaintiffs, in contrast, cited the failure of the drug to be the cause of their health problems.
The company’s monopolistic practices led to the emergence of a new class of lawsuits against the company.
In the 2005 Texas case, a jury awarded Merck $253 million after finding that the drug had caused an act of war. A separate class action against Merck has been filed against Merck for breach of contract, but the case remains in litigation. In this case, the plaintiffs have already obtained a settlement of $5.9 million.
A new lawsuit against Merck is likely to come before a jury. Several high-profile lawsuits against Merck have been filed against the pharmaceutical giant for stealing patents. The latest lawsuit relates to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Both Pfizer and Merck are vying for the patents. Ultimately, the winner will be based on the fact that Pfizer’s vaccines are more effective than Merck’s and Pfizer’s.
In the case of Barnett v. Merck, Lieff Cabraser was co-counsel for the plaintiffs. In this lawsuit, a jury found that Vioxx caused the plaintiff’s heart attack and awarded him punitive damages. The plaintiffs’ attorneys worked with Mark Robinson and Andy Birchfield to obtain the settlement. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that Merck was guilty of conspiracy.