Pfizer, Allergan Agree on Historic Merger Deal Pfizer Inc. Allergan PLC agreed on a historic merger deal worth more than $1. America to a foreign country. The boards of each company ratified the deal Sunday and it could be announced Monday, according to people familiar with the matter. The final terms include 1.
- Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer Inc., New York, US, today announced the finalization of the co-promotion agreemen. In the second and third quarters of 2015, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer will begin co-promoting XALKORI in the.
- Should brand-name drug makers be held liable if consumers are harmed by a medicine made by a generic rival? The Alabama Supreme Court believes the answer is yes. And the court has upheld its own controversial ruling that Pfizer can be sued by an Alabama man who claimed he was injured by a generic.
- Pfizer Inc. / ˈ f aɪ z ər / is an American global pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in New York City, [3] with its research headquarters in Groton, Connecticut. It is among the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. [4] Pfizer is listed on the New York Stock.
Pfizer shares for every Allergan share and the deal also..
Pfizer is Liable for Harm Caused by a Generic Version of its Drug: Court - Pharmalot. Aug 1. 5, 2. 01. 4 5: 1. ET. Should brand- name drug makers be held liable if consumers are harmed by a medicine made by a generic rival?
Paychex Inc. Stock - PAYX news, historical stock charts, analyst ratings, financials, and today’s Paychex Inc. stock price. P/E Ratio (TTM) The Price to Earnings (P/E) ratio, a key valuation measure, is calculated by dividing the stock's most recent closing.
Pfizer Inc. Stock - PFE news, historical stock charts, analyst ratings, financials, and today’s Pfizer Inc. stock price. P/E Ratio (TTM) The Price to Earnings (P/E) ratio, a key valuation measure, is calculated by dividing the stock's most recent closing price by the.
The Alabama Supreme Court believes the answer is yes. And the court has upheld its own controversial ruling that Pfizer can be sued by an Alabama man who claimed he was injured by a generic version of its Reglan heartburn medicine. Why? The brand- name drug maker purportedly failed to warn his physician about the risks. The decision is potentially significant, because this is one of the few cases in which a court has found that a brand- name drug maker can be sued, even though a consumer had taken only the generic version. Consequently, the ruling may be considered by other courts deciding similar cases and prompt still more such lawsuits.
The issue has been under a microscope ever since the U. S. Supreme Court limited claims against generic drug makers. In 2. 01. 1, the court decided generic drug makers are unable to make changes to product labeling, even when alerted to side effects, unless a brand- name drug maker has made such a change. This meant generic drug makers should not be held accountable for a failure to warn against risks.
In the case in Alabama, a man named Danny weeks was prescribed a generic version of Reglan and developed tardive dyskinesia, a serious and permanent movement disorder. He later accused Wyeth, which was bought by Pfizer, of failing to warn his physician of the long- term use of the drug. For its part, Pfizer argued it did not have a direct relationship with the consumer and, therefore, had no responsibility. But the Alabama court disagreed.
Pfizer’s argument “completely ignored the nature of prescription medication,” the court wrote. The consumer “cannot obtain Reglan or any other prescription medication directly from a prescription- drug manufacturer. The only way for a consumer to [do so] is for a physician or other medical professional authorized to write prescription to prescribe the medication to his or her patient.“When the warning to the prescribing health care professional is inadequate, however, the manufacturer is directly liable to the patient for damage resulting from that failure,” the court continued, noting that the warning would first have to emanate from a brand- name drug maker before a generic drug could follow suit. Consequently, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that “it is not fundamentally unfair to hold the brand- name manufacturer liable for warnings on a product it did not produce.”Pfizer was not pleased. In a statement, the drug maker says the ruling is “an outlier” and contends that “virtually every other court” that has considered this issue since the initial Alabama Supreme Court decision early last year has rejected the notion that brand- name drug makers should be held liable for injuries caused by a generic version of its medicine. Pfizer then trots out some numbers – 2. Alabama court, including the Iowa Supreme Court and six federal courts of appeals.
And overall, 9. 8 courts applying the laws of 3. Pfizer.“Those courts have recognized that subjecting brand- name manufacturers to perpetual liability for injuries resulting from generic products would stifle innovation,” the drug maker says in its statement. We asked a Pfizer spokesman if an appeal is planned and will update you accordingly. The same issue, by the way, came up two months ago, when a federal appeals court allowed a lawsuit to proceed against Glaxo. Smith. Kline. The case was filed by a woman who claims her husband committed suicide after taking a generic version of its Paxil antidepressant, which was made by Mylan Laboratories.
A district court judge had previously decided that it was “largely immaterial” that Glaxo did not make the generic, because Glaxo was responsible for product design and labeling. We should note, however, that the FDA has proposed a new rule that would let generic drug makers independently add new side effect information to product labeling. The proposal was made in response to the 2. U. S. Supreme Court ruling, which consumer advocates complained could place patients at risk, especially at a time when generics are so widely used. Generic drug makers, however, maintain the proposed rule would add $4 billion to the nation’s health care bill, mostly due to higher litigation costs that may ensue.
Two months ago, a pair of Republican lawmakers agreed with that argument and wrote the White House to question the authority the FDA has to issue such a rule.