This just in:  In Ironworkers Local 68 & Participating Employers Health & Welfare Funds v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 2011 WL 833222, slip op. (11th Cir. March 11, 2011), the court affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) of one of these third-party payer economic loss class action strike suits.  Because of

We can’t comment on the cases because of our involvement, but we wanted to pass along this new opinion granting summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds in the Seroquel litigation.  Burrell v. AstraZeneca LP, slip op. (Del. Super. Sept. 20, 2010).

It’s worth a read.  The court concluded, for purposes of determining when

We can’t say much about these, because Dechert represents the defendants in Seroquel litigation, but here are two more decisions just handed down in Delaware Superior Court (Delaware courts are superior) granting summary judgments in Seroquel cases:  Hopkins v. AstraZeneca, C.A. No. 06C-01-325 SER, slip op. (Del. Super. New Castle Co. March 31, 2010);

We can’t say much, because it’s a Dechert case, but the first Seroquel case to go to trial, Baker v. AstraZeneca (in New Jersey state court) has just ended with a defense verdict – 7-1 on the warning being adequate.  We won’t break our arms patting ourselves on the back, but we want to congratulate,

We can’t say much about this, as Herrmann is on vacation and Bexis is involved in the Seroquel litigation. The MDL judge today ruled on the defendant’s motion to exclude various “non-causation” opinions/testimony by the plaintiff’s experts. Here is a brief summary of what Judge Conway excluded:

  • “[N]arrative history” of the defendant’s “marketing and

Defense counsel considering whether they still have good preemption arguments in drug product liability matters after Levine would do well to review preemption briefs recently filed by defendants in major product liability litigation. The litigation involves two fact patterns that we have previously mentioned as candidates for preemption even after Levine. FDA regulatory activity

Last week (we think; it was before Levine anyway) we reported on the belated and meritless recusal motion filed by the plaintiffs in the Sprint-Fidelis litigation. We were remiss in not reporting sooner, but the other day, the court denied the motion, as it well should have. The last section of the opinion discussed some