Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VLAD who wrote (18603)	2/9/1999 4:06:00 PM
From: RCMac	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 23519

VLAD, There are some misperceptions in your confident statements about lawsuits and possible lawsuits against Pfizer over Viagra. >>So far all the lawsuits against Pfizer regarding Viagra have been individual lawsuits that I believe must be filed in the appropriate circuit court where Pfizer has its HQs(NY, NY).<< No, there's no reason in the world why an allegedly injured plaintiff could not commence suit in his home states' trialcourt of general jurisdiction. The "long-arm" jurisdiction statutes or court rules of every state would permit such a suit on a product sold in the home state. If the Viagra lawsuits are concentrated in New York, that is likely due to one particularly active plaintiff's lawyer. >>As these lawsuits continue to accumulate, the judge will eventually decide to turn the suits into a class action.<< "The judge"? - are they really all before one judge? If so, see the prior paragraph. If a class action has not yet been filed, it is probably because class-action lawyers (1) know that Pfizer will not easily roll over, but will fight tooth and nail and can afford to do so, (2) are dubious about proving causality, in light of the sort of analysis outlined in JennyLouise's post #18606, and (3) are well aware, as armchair litigators may not be, that one of the requirement for a class action is that issues common to the class predominate over individual litigant's issues; class action lawyers might well feel that class certification is unlikely, or at least very difficult and uncertain, where a central issue will be whether Viagra contributed to the death or non-fatal heart attack of the particular individual, in light of his health otherwise. Not that this means that no one will try a class action; but I'm not at all surprised that no one has rushed off to court so far - it's hardly a slam dunk, and courts have become more reluctant to certify class actions in tort matter over the last ten years. Even the guy in New York who has brought many (all?) of the Viagra actions hasn't sought class action status, I believe. (I should say that as a lawyer I've defended class actions, although mostly actions brought under the securities laws, where it's easier to show that common issues predominate over individual issues.) >>The courts are already way too crowded for the court system to hear each individual lawsuit filed where a Viagra patient either died or had a heart attack.<< Agreed, but a huge unwieldy class action is not wonderful for a court's docket either, and courts are increasingly reluctant to assist plaintiff's lawyers in what is often perceived as a sort of blackmail. To be clear, VLAD: This is not to defend Pfizer's conduct in the Viagra trials, or its shameful Viagra marketing, or to disagree with your about very much, just to try to apply some reasonable legal analysis to the class action issues. Any disagreement with the above analysis, Mark Stang? BTW, as you may know from my prior posts here, I'm long VVUS. --RCM