Why doesn’t Pfizer want to be known as Pfizer?
One reason might be it’s extensive rap sheet.
Whistleblowers are now accusing Pfizer subsidiary Wyeth of ripping off the government, this time by encouraging physicians to prescribe its acid reflux drug Protonix off label.
Wyeth was purchased by Pfizer in 2009 — after the alleged wrongdoing took place.
In a hearing last week in federal court in Boston, Judge Douglas Woodlock considered the question of whether Pfizer should be identified as a party in the case.
Judge Woodlock initially appeared ready to agree with Pfizer attorney Brien O’Connor, a partner at Ropes & Gray, who argued that Pfizer shouldn’t be identified as a party in the proceedings.
“Pfizer — there is the element, and it happens, and we talk to the government about it all the time in these investigations, that, to the extent this case is reported on, it will be about Pfizer’s subsidiary, or Pfizer faces, Pfizer — your Honor, that’s harmful to the company,” O’Connor said.
But then things quickly turned.
The Court: Well, wait a minute. Let me just pause with that. You mean if Pfizer is sued, is the defendant —
O’Connor: Is a defendant.
The Court: Just a moment. If Pfizer is the defendant, then there is disclosure, but if its wholly owned subsidiaries are sued for the same amount it is not material?
O’Connor: I am not talking about material.
The Court: Is this an SEC issue?
O’Connor: No. I’m talking about a press issue and all the constituents of Pfizer out there. Your Honor, if these cases get reported and we do talk about it, with all these companies, when you acquire a company, like Pfizer acquired Wyeth, it had nothing to do with the conduct —
The Court: Let me just pause, then, because I have not gone through the SEC filings, which I assume are the publicly required filings as opposed to, say, public relations putting out the fires.
O’Connor: Can I make one comment on the filings?
The Court: Sure.
O’Connor: The one comment on the filings is, (Justice Department Attorney Kriss Basil) and the United States keeps talking about “Pfizer” this, “Pfizer” that in the disclosures. It’s Pfizer and its subsidiaries. Wyeth is a subsidiary.
The Court: I think I understand that part of it.
O’Connor: Okay.
The Court: : You will add to this to expand on the discussion if I have missed something. Now I want to go to the core of it. Is Pfizer now disclosing in its filings with the SEC this litigation as material, if you know? You may not know.
O’Connor: I don’t know the answer to that. I do have a Pfizer — I do have a client here. I’m not sure if she knows the answer, but I could check.
The Court: Mr. Basil?
Basil: Yes, it’s in there. It’s in the financial report that’s attached to the 10-K filings. It has been since 2009.
The Court: So, are you counting on the public not reading the SEC filings?
O’Connor: Yes. I’m counting on the press focusing on what’s going on in this courtroom and who is a defendant and more than a disclosure like that, that we have acquired a company that has this litigation. I think those are two different things that could lead to different press accounts.
The Court: I do not. My view is that I will permit Pfizer to be added as a defendant in the case, that it is entirely stayed unless and until there is a judgment in the case, but it seems to me that sufficient information has been brought to my attention here to justify it. There are various ways of dealing with that sort of thing at the end of the trial. First, you may win, in which case, apart from the perception that Pfizer has gotten some public relations problem that apparently was not available to diligent people in the financial press before.