Here’s more proof (as if more were needed) that Herrmann’s a step slow. (And it’s again only Herrmann. This post relates to the Vioxx settlement, and Bexis is playing no role in drafting this.)
We posted last week about the Vioxx settlement. The aspect of the settlement that interested us most was finality: After AmChem
Herrmann posted last weekend about the Vioxx settlement. Everybody and his brother seems to be looking for “experts” to comment on the settlement; by posting on the subject, we knowingly entered the fray. And that’s fine. Herrmann is happy to discuss the settlement, but please remember three things:
1. Bexis has had nothing to do
We’ve had a longstanding interest in a topic, cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, the very name of which screams “esoteric”. You might think that it screams something worse than that, but hey, we’re guys who blog about drug and medical device litigation for fun – so we’re incapable of being insulted in that fashion.
Anyway, because
We know, we know: The parties announced the Vioxx settlement on Friday, and it’s already Sunday, and we haven’t yet chimed in.
We have two excuses. First, Bexis’s tongue is tied. His firm is involved in the Vioxx litigation, so he can’t comment on the settlement. He, of course, played no role in drafting this
Here is Merck’s verbatim press release:
News Release
Media Contacts: Christopher Garland Investor
Contact: Graeme Bell
(908) 423-3461
(908) 423-5185
Kent Jarrell
(202) 230-1833
Merck Agreement to Resolve U.S. VIOXX(r) Product Liability Lawsuits Agreement Provides for $4.85 Billion Payment
WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., Nov. 9, 2007 – Merck & Co., Inc. today announced that it has
Last week the New Jersey Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision (6-0) ordered a nationwide third-party payer class action decertified. See International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., 2007 WL 2493917 (N.J. Sep. 6, 2007). There have already been a number of blog posts discussing this case,
This post relates to the Vioxx litigation, in which Beck’s firm is involved. You therefore can’t blame Beck for this post; it’s being written entirely by Herrmann.
We’ve previously posted about the headaches caused when unrelated plaintiffs join their claims in a single complaint.
In the Vioxx litigation, Judge Fallon had originally permitted unrelated plaintiffs
On this issue, Beck can’t speak. (Stop cheering, “Thank God for small favors.”) His firm, Dechert, is in the thick of the Vioxx litigation.
So this post is pure, unadulterated Herrmann. (Stop shouting, “We’d rather have Beck.”)
We’re thinking today about Judge Higbee’s recent decision awarding plaintiffs $3.7 million in attorneys’ fees (and costs) for
Last weekend, we did a post on why preemption matters. The story has now evolved.
Judge Randy Wilson, in Harris County, Texas, is overseeing the Texas statewide coordinated Vioxx proceedings. Judge Wilson announced late last week (April 12, more or less) that he would be entering an order ruling in favor of Merck on