This post comes only from the Cozen O’Connor side of the blog.

The Vioxx MDL is still alive.  But not really kicking.  The master settlement agreement ended the mass tort portion of this litigation, leaving behind a vastly smaller number of cases filed by plaintiffs who chose not to “opt in” to the settlement.  The MDL court is still managing some of those cases.  But, if Levitt v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52756 (E.D. La. Apr. 21, 2015), is any indication, it won’t be for much longer.

In Levitt, the MDL court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment, instead ordering that discovery be reopened.  While that might not sound like the decision of a court looking to end its involvement in the Vioxx litigation, remanding the case to the original transferor court for further proceedings sure does.  And the MDL court did that too.  Id. at * 30.


Continue Reading

You may have read in the legal or mainstream press that the Fifth Circuit rejected challenges to the Vioxx Master Settlement Agreement. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 2802352 (5th Cir. July 16, 2010). That’s all well and good, but what really interested us was not given significant play in the media,

We can’t say much about it, since Dechert’s been involved in Vioxx litigation from the beginning, but there’s a brand new summary judgment decision in one of the state AG vioxx cases – brought by Louisiana.  In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, No. 05-3700, slip op.  Three claims were dismissed:  LA consumer fraud statute,

Yesterday we mentioned that Merck had won summary judgment in a consumer protection-type suit brought by the Texas Attorney General concerning Vioxx. We hoped for an “interesting opinion.” Well, check that. We’ve now seen the order – and that’s all there is (at least for now) – an order. Here it is, but it

Bexis can’t say much anyway, since his firm’s involved in Vioxx, and neither of us have seen the opinion, but Merck announced today that it was granted summary judgment today in the Texas state AG consumer protection litigation. Here’s a link to Merck’s press release. When we get a copy of what promises to

New Jersey Vioxx plaintiffs weren’t going to let a little thing like losing in the New Jersey Supreme Court keep them from trying to certify their nationwide consumer fraud class action. But yesterday, Judge Higbee, the trial judge assigned the Vioxx mass tort in New Jersey, saw it differently. She denied class certification for a

There’s been a controversy in both the scientific literature and the popular press recently about whether Merck’s “ADVANTAGE” trial of Vioxx was a “seeding” trial conducted for marketing purposes.

That subject has been too hot for us to touch, in part because Bexis’ firm is involved in the Vioxx litigation, so he couldn’t speak on

We posted yesterday about the Texas appellate court’s dismissal of the appeal in Ledbetter v. Merck, the Vioxx case that resulted in a key defense precedent in the trial court.

Among other things, we wrote:

“Ledbetter had asked the court not only to dismiss the appeal, but also to dismiss the underlying lawsuit and

The Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters have sued six law firms (including Beasley Allen, Girardi and Keese, and Levin Fishbein) for their handling of the Vioxx settlement. The complaint pleads that the law firms representing plaintiffs mishandled the Vioxx settlement, failing to provide money to cover lien rights of ERISA health plans.

Given