Who Paid The Largest Criminal Fine And Why? - CLT Livre

Who Paid The Largest Criminal Fine And Why?

Who pays the largest criminal fine and why?

3. Bank of America (2014) – In 2008, the United States plunged into a financial crisis stemming from a spate of subprime mortgage lending that strapped homebuyers to adjustable rate mortgages that they could not afford. The United States Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigated a large number of banks and commercial lenders and ultimately punished them for their role in the financial crash.

  1. Ultimately it was Bank of America that paid the largest criminal fine in history for a financial institution.
  2. Most of Bank of America’s culpability stemmed from the actions of companies it had purchased, including Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch.
  3. The bank settled with the Department of Justice by paying a $16.6 billion fine,

This was the largest criminal fine of all the culpable banks, but in total, those banks have paid over $250 billion for their role in the crisis.

Did Pfizer pay the largest criminal fine ever?

List of largest pharmaceutical settlements The following is a list of the 20 largest settlements reached between the and from 2001 to 2012, ordered by the size of the total settlement. The settlement amount includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine.

Glaxo’s $3 billion settlement included the largest civil False Claims Act settlement on record, and Pfizer’s $2.3 billion ($3.5 billion in 2022) settlement including a record-breaking $1.3 billion criminal fine. Legal claims against the pharmaceutical industry have varied widely over the past two decades, including, promotion, and inadequate manufacturing practices.

With respect to off-label promotion, specifically, a federal court recognized off-label promotion as a violation of the for the first time in, leading to a $430 million settlement.

Year Company Settlement Violation(s) Product(s) Laws violated (if applicable)
2012 $3 billion ($1B criminal, $2B civil) Criminal: Off-label promotion, failure to disclose safety data. Civil: paying kickbacks to physicians, making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of Avandia, reporting false best prices and underpaying rebates owed under the (not providing safety data),, (promotion of paediatric use),,,,,,, ,
2009 $2.3 billion Off-label promotion, ,,, False Claims Act, FDCA
2013 $2.2 billion Off-label promotion, ,, False Claims Act, FDCA
2012 $1.5 billion Off-label promotion False Claims Act, FDCA
2009 $1.4 billion Off-label promotion False Claims Act, FDCA
2001 $875 million , kickbacks False Claims Act,
2012 $762 million Off-label promotion, kickbacks False Claims Act, FDCA
2010 GlaxoSmithKline $750 million Poor manufacturing practices ,,, False Claims Act, FDCA
2005 $704 million Off-label promotion, kickbacks, practices False Claims Act
2008 $650 million Medicare fraud, kickbacks ,, False Claims Act, Medicaid Rebate Statute
2007 $601 million Off-label promotion False Claims Act
2010 $600 million Off-label promotion False Claims Act, FDCA
2010 $520 million Off-label promotion, kickbacks False Claims Act
2007 $515 million Off-label promotion, kickbacks, Medicare fraud , False Claims Act, FDCA
2002 $500 million Poor manufacturing practices Current
2006 $465 million Misclassification under the ()
2006 Schering-Plough $435 million Off-label promotion, kickbacks, Medicare fraud ,,, False Claims Act, FDCA
2004 Pfizer $430 million Off-label promotion False Claims Act, FDCA
2008 $425 million Off-label promotion ,, False Claims Act, FDCA
2010 $423 million Off-label promotion, kickbacks False Claims Act, FDCA
2003 AstraZeneca $355 million Medicare fraud Prescription Drug Marketing Act
2004 Schering-Plough $345 million Medicare fraud, kickbacks False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute

Did Pfizer hit with the largest criminal fine?

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History WASHINGTON – American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA.

Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns.

  1. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter.
  2. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.
  3. In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs.

The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170.

  • This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.
  • As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.
  • That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.

Whistleblower lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act that are pending in the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Kentucky triggered this investigation. As a part of today’s resolution, six whistleblowers will receive payments totaling more than $102 million from the federal share of the civil recovery.

The U.S. Attorney’s offices for the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice handled these cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts led the criminal investigation of Bextra.

The investigation was conducted by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FBI, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Office of Criminal Investigations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Veterans’ Administration’s (VA) Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of the Inspector General for the United States Postal Service (USPS), the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units and the offices of various state Attorneys General.

You might be interested:  How To Delete Facebook Account?

Today’s landmark settlement is an example of the Department of Justice’s ongoing and intensive efforts to protect the American public and recover funds for the federal treasury and the public from those who seek to earn a profit through fraud. It shows one of the many ways in which federal government, in partnership with its state and local allies, can help the American people at a time when budgets are tight and health care costs are increasing,” said Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli.

“This settlement is a testament to the type of broad, coordinated effort among federal agencies and with our state and local partners that is at the core of the Department of Justice’s approach to law enforcement.” “This historic settlement will return nearly $1 billion to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programs, securing their future for the Americans who depend on these programs,”said Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services”The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to seek opportunities to work with its government partners to prosecute fraud wherever we can find it.

  1. But we will also look for new ways to prevent fraud before it happens.
  2. Health care is too important to let a single dollar go to waste.” “Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by health care providers, and costs the government billions of dollars,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

“This civil settlement and plea agreement by Pfizer represent yet another example of what penalties will be faced when a pharmaceutical company puts profits ahead of patient welfare.” “The size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine of $1.3 billion, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer’s crimes,” said Mike Loucks, acting U.S.

  1. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.
  2. Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period.
  3. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws.

Today’s enormous fine demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated.” “Although these types of investigations are often long and complicated and require many resources to achieve positive results, the FBI will not be deterred from continuing to ensure that pharmaceutical companies conduct business in a lawful manner,” said Kevin Perkins, FBI Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division.

  1. This resolution protects the FDA in its vital mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective.
  2. When manufacturers undermine the FDA’s rules, they interfere with a doctor’s judgment and can put patient health at risk,” commented Michael L.
  3. Levy, U.S.
  4. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

“The public trusts companies to market their drugs for uses that FDA has approved, and trusts that doctors are using independent judgment. Federal health dollars should only be spent on treatment decisions untainted by misinformation from manufacturers concerned with the bottom line.” “This settlement demonstrates the ongoing efforts to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars for the Medicare and Medicaid programs,” noted Jim Zerhusen, U.S.

Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. “This historic settlement emphasizes the government’s commitment to corporate and individual accountability and to transparency throughout the pharmaceutical industry,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

“The corporate integrity agreement requires senior Pfizer executives and board members to complete annual compliance certifications and opens Pfizer to more public scrutiny by requiring it to make detailed disclosures on its Web site. We expect this agreement to increase integrity in the marketing of pharmaceuticals.” “The off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs by Pfizer significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s healthcare system,” said Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

This illegal activity increases patients’ costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system. Today’s charges and settlement demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those that abuse the government’s healthcare programs at the expense of the taxpayers and patients.” “Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behavior,” said Patrick E.

McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Today’s settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk.” “Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service.

What is Pfizer’s net worth?

Pfizer Net Worth 2010-2023 | PFE Interactive chart of historical net worth (market cap) for Pfizer (PFE) over the last 10 years. How much a company is worth is typically represented by its market capitalization, or the current stock price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. Pfizer net worth as of September 26, 2023 is $182.93B,

Sector Industry Market Cap Revenue
$182.929B $100.330B
Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. The company boasts a sustainable pipeline with multiple late-stage programs that can drive growth. Pfizer markets a wide range of drugs and vaccines. Its business comprises six business units – Oncology, Inflammation & Immunology, Rare Disease, Hospital, Vaccines and Internal Medicine. Pfizer spinned-off its Upjohn unit, its off-patent branded and generic established medicines business, and combined it with generic drugmaker Mylan to create a new generic pharmaceutical company called Viatris. The Consumer Healthcare (CHC) segment, an over-the-counter (OTC) medicines business, was merged with Glaxo’s unit to form a new joint venture.?The Consumer Healthcare joint venture with Glaxo and the merger of Upjohn unit with Mylan has made Pfizer a smaller company with a diversified portfolio of innovative drugs and vaccines.

Pfizer Net Worth 2010-2023 | PFE

Who are the owners of Pfizer?

The Bottom Line – Pfizer, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical and biotechnology company with headquarters in New York. It developed a successful vaccine against COVID-19. It’s top three individual shareholders are Frank A. D’Amelio, Mikael Dolsten, and Albert Bourla.

Is Pfizer in debt?

Total debt on the balance sheet as of March 2023 : $34.92 B – According to Pfizer ‘s latest financial reports the company’s total debt is $34.92 B, A company’s total debt is the sum of all current and non-current debts.

Is Pfizer a good company?

Pfizer has an overall rating of 4.1 out of 5, based on over 8,853 reviews left anonymously by employees.81% of employees would recommend working at Pfizer to a friend and 73% have a positive outlook for the business. This rating has decreased by -1% over the last 12 months. Does Pfizer pay their employees well?

Who are Pfizer competitors?

Key Takeaways –

Pfizer is one of the leading companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry. Pfizer’s top-selling drugs in FY 2022 were Paxlovid and Eliquis. Pfizer’s main competitors are Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Holding AG, Eli Lilly and Co., AbbVie Inc., and Merck & Co.

Is Pfizer a German name?

Etymology – Borrowed from German Pfizer, The biotechnology company was named after one of its co-founders, German-American businessman Charles Pfizer (1824–1906).

What is Pfizer called now?

FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine For Immediate Release: August 23, 2021 Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.

  1. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.
  2. The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic.

While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D.

  • While millions of people have already safely received COVID-19 vaccines, we recognize that for some, the FDA approval of a vaccine may now instill additional confidence to get vaccinated.
  • Today’s milestone puts us one step closer to altering the course of this pandemic in the U.S.” Since Dec.11, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has been available under EUA in individuals 16 years of age and older, and the authorization was expanded to include those 12 through 15 years of age on May 10, 2021.

EUAs can be used by the FDA during public health emergencies to provide access to medical products that may be effective in preventing, diagnosing, or treating a disease, provided that the FDA determines that the known and potential benefits of a product, when used to prevent, diagnose, or treat the disease, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

FDA-approved vaccines undergo the agency’s standard process for reviewing the quality, safety and effectiveness of medical products. For all vaccines, the FDA evaluates data and information included in the manufacturer’s submission of a biologics license application (BLA). A BLA is a comprehensive document that is submitted to the agency providing very specific requirements.

For Comirnaty, the BLA builds on the extensive data and information previously submitted that supported the EUA, such as preclinical and clinical data and information, as well as details of the manufacturing process, vaccine testing results to ensure vaccine quality, and inspections of the sites where the vaccine is made.

  1. The agency conducts its own analyses of the information in the BLA to make sure the vaccine is safe and effective and meets the FDA’s standards for approval.
  2. Comirnaty contains messenger RNA (mRNA), a kind of genetic material.
  3. The mRNA is used by the body to make a mimic of one of the proteins in the virus that causes COVID-19.

The result of a person receiving this vaccine is that their immune system will ultimately react defensively to the virus that causes COVID-19. The mRNA in Comirnaty is only present in the body for a short time and is not incorporated into – nor does it alter – an individual’s genetic material.

Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA vaccine and is administered as a series of two doses, three weeks apart. “Our scientific and medical experts conducted an incredibly thorough and thoughtful evaluation of this vaccine. We evaluated scientific data and information included in hundreds of thousands of pages, conducted our own analyses of Comirnaty’s safety and effectiveness, and performed a detailed assessment of the manufacturing processes, including inspections of the manufacturing facilities,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“We have not lost sight that the COVID-19 public health crisis continues in the U.S. and that the public is counting on safe and effective vaccines. The public and medical community can be confident that although we approved this vaccine expeditiously, it was fully in keeping with our existing high standards for vaccines in the U.S.”

Who is Pfizer partner in China?

Pfizer has struck a deal with Chinese drugmaker CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Ltd. to launch a local brand of Covid-19 antiviral Paxlovid, the latest in a string of partnerships the US giant has secured as it expands access in China.

Why was Vioxx banned?

Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004. Research published in the medical journal Lancet estimates that 88,000 Americans had heart attacks from taking Vioxx, and 38,000 of them died. Brendan McDermid/EPA/Corbis hide caption toggle caption Brendan McDermid/EPA/Corbis Shortly before the FDA approved Vioxx in 1999, drug maker Merck launched a study it hoped would prove that Vioxx was superior to older painkillers, because it caused fewer gastrointestinal problems.

Instead, the study would eventually show Vioxx could be deadly, causing heart attacks and strokes. Five years after Vioxx’s launch, Merck withdrew the drug from the market. By that time, Merck had sold billions of dollars of the drug worldwide. A timeline of Vioxx’s rise and fall: November 1998: Merck asks the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of Vioxx, having tested the drug on 5,400 subjects in eight studies.

January 1999: Merck launches the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research study (VIGOR). With more than 8,000 participants, it is the largest study ever done of the drug. Half take Vioxx and the other half take naproxen. The clinical trial is designed to see whether Vioxx is safer for the digestive system than naproxen, an older painkiller.

May 1999: The FDA approves Vioxx, making the drug available by prescription in the United States. October 1999: First meeting of the VIGOR study’s data and safety monitoring board (DSMB). Study results as of Oct.1, 1999, show that Vioxx patients have fewer ulcers and less gastrointestinal bleeding than patients taking naproxen.

It looks as if the study will be a success for Merck. November 1999: At the second meeting of the VIGOR safety panel, the discussion focuses on heart problems. As of Nov.1, 1999, 79 patients out of 4,000 taking Vioxx have had serious heart problems or have died, compared with 41 patients taking naproxen.

The minutes of the panel’s November meeting note that “while the trends are disconcerting, the numbers of events are small.” The panel votes to continue the study and to meet again in a month. December 1999: The safety panel holds its last meeting. It’s told that as of Dec.1, 1999, the risk of serious heart problems and death among Vioxx patients is twice as high as in the naproxen group.

The DSMB votes to continue study, but decides Merck needs to develop a plan to analyze the study’s cardiovascular results before the study ends. DSMB Chairman Michael Weinblatt and Merck statistician Deborah Shapiro draft a letter and send it to Merck’s Alise Reicin (now vice president of Merck’s clinical research).

Later, when defending its decision to continue the study, the safety panel said it couldn’t tell if Vioxx was causing the heart problems or if naproxen, acting like low-dose aspirin, protected people from them, making Vioxx just look risky by comparison. January 2000: Merck balks at developing the analysis plan.

The company wants to wait and combine the cardiovascular results of VIGOR with results from other Vioxx studies. Weinblatt, the safety panel chair and a rheumatologist with Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, pushes for immediate analysis. February 2000: After further discussions, Merck and Weinblatt agree to analyze heart problems reported by Feb.10, 2000 — at least a month before the last patient leaves the study.

  1. Events reported later won’t be included in the initial analysis.
  2. Feb.7, 2000: Weinblatt fills out a financial disclosure form that says he and his wife own $72,975 of Merck stock.
  3. Feb.15, 2000: Weinblatt agrees to a new consulting contract with Merck.
  4. We are delighted that you have agreed to serve as a member of the VIOXX Multidisciplinary Advisory Board,” Merck writes in an invitation to Weinblatt to attend his first advisory board meeting.

Weinblatt signs the new contract on March 6. It involves 12 days of work over two years, at the rate of $5,000 per day. March 2000: Merck gets results of the VIGOR trial. May 2000: Merck submits VIGOR paper to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for publication.

The data include only 17 of the 20 heart attacks Vioxx patients have. July 5, 2000: A memo from Merck statistician Deborah Shapiro to Merck scientist Alise Reicin (both are listed as authors of the NEJM paper) refers to heart attacks 18, 19 and 20 suffered by patients taking Vioxx during the study. July 2000/November 2000: VIGOR authors submit two sets of corrections to their NEJM manuscript.

No mention of the three additional heart attacks. Oct.13, 2000: Merck tells the FDA about heart attacks 18, 19 and 20. Nov.23, 2000: The VIGOR results are published in NEJM, still with no mention of the three additional heart attacks in the Vioxx group.

The published results also leave out data on many other kinds of cardiovascular adverse events. February 2001: The FDA holds an advisory meeting on the VIGOR trials. It publishes complete VIGOR data on its Web site, including the additional heart attacks and data on other cardiovascular events. Aug.22, 2001: Cardiologists Debabrata Mukherjee, Steven Nissen and Eric Topol publish their meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on complete VIGOR data that the FDA has made available.

Their analysis is significant because they take all the VIGOR data from the FDA Web site, recrunch them, and cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that naproxen protects the heart. January 2002 to August 2004: Numerous epidemiological studies point to Vioxx’s increased risk of cardiovascular problems.

September 2004: Merck withdraws Vioxx after a colon-polyp prevention study, called APPROVe, shows that the drug raises the risk of heart attacks after 18 months. By the time Vioxx is withdrawn from market, an estimated 20 million Americans have taken the drug. Research later published in the medical journal Lancet estimates that 88,000 Americans had heart attacks from taking Vioxx, and 38,000 of them died.

July 14, 2005: NEJM editor-in-chief Dr. Jeffrey Drazen tells NPR that the journal had been “hoodwinked” by Merck, and that the authors of the VIGOR paper should have told the journal about the additional data. August 2005: A Texas state jury returns a verdict against Merck in the first Vioxx liability case to go to trial.

Some 13,000 lawsuits have been filed against the company on behalf of 23,000 plaintiffs who allege the drug caused heart attacks and strokes. November 2005: NEJM executive editor Dr. Gregory Curfman is deposed in connection with the Vioxx product-liability cases. At that time, he learns about the July 5, 2000, memo, which shows Merck VIGOR authors knew about heart attacks 18, 19 and 20 well before the paper was published in NEJM,

December 2005: NEJM issues an “Expression of Concern,” writing that “inaccuracies and deletions” in the VIGOR manuscript Merck submitted to the journal “call into question the integrity of the data.” The journal asks the study authors to submit a correction to the journal.

March 2006: VIGOR study authors respond to NEJM’s Expression of Concern: “Our evaluation leads us to conclude that our original article followed appropriate clinical trial principles and does not require a correction.” The three heart attacks in question, say the authors, occurred after the study’s “prespecified cutoff date” for reporting cardiovascular problems.

Journal editors stand by their call for a correction, replying that the cut-off date appeared to be selected shortly before the trial ended, and was a month earlier than VIGOR’s cutoff date for gastrointestinal problems. Such a trial design, according to NEJM, “skewed” results.

May 2006: Outside analysis of data sent to the FDA from the Vioxx APPROVe study show that the cardiovascular risks from Vioxx began shortly after patients started taking the drug. The data also indicate that the risks from Vioxx remain long after patients stop taking the drug. Merck disagrees with the analysis and maintains that patients aren’t at risk unless they had taken the drug for more than 18 months.

This point is worth billions for Merck. Many of those suing the company say they took Vioxx for less than 18 months. June 2006: The seventh trial against Merck begins, with plaintiff Elaine Doherty, 68, alleging the painkiller caused her heart attack and subsequent double heart bypass surgery.

The trial, before the New Jersey superior court, is the first since the release of the new Vioxx research results. The data raises questions about how quickly the drug could cause harm and could undermine Merck’s credibility. Out of the six cases that have already gone to trial, Merck has won three and lost three.

Research published in the medical journal Lancet estimates that 88,000 Americans had heart attacks from taking Vioxx, and 38,000 of them died. November 2007: Merck announces it will pay $4.85 billion to end thousands of lawsuits over its painkiller Vioxx.

Who owns Pfizer’s biggest stock?

Top 10 Owners of Pfizer Inc

Stockholder Stake Shares owned
The Vanguard Group, Inc. 8.57% 484,014,036
BlackRock Fund Advisors 5.29% 298,607,279
SSgA Funds Management, Inc. 5.09% 287,201,692
Wellington Management Co. LLP 4.13% 233,110,040

What is Pfizer’s financial strength?

Pfizer (PFE) Balance Sheet & Financial Health Metrics Pfizer has a total shareholder equity of $99.3B and total debt of $65.7B, which brings its debt-to-equity ratio to 66.1%. Its total assets and total liabilities are $220.2B and $120.9B respectively. Pfizer’s EBIT is $25.4B making its interest coverage ratio 603.6. It has cash and short-term investments of $44.8B.66.1% Debt to equity ratio

Interest coverage ratio 603.6x
Cash US$44.79b
Equity US$99.29b
Total liabilities US$120.88b
Total assets US$220.17b

Short Term Liabilities: PFE’s short term assets ($73.3B) exceed its short term liabilities ($34.6B). Long Term Liabilities: PFE’s short term assets ($73.3B) do not cover its long term liabilities ($86.2B). Debt Level: PFE’s net debt to equity ratio (21%) is considered satisfactory, Simply Wall Street Pty Ltd (ACN 600 056 611), is a Corporate Authorised Representative (Authorised Representative Number: 467183) of Sanlam Private Wealth Pty Ltd (AFSL No.337927). Any advice contained in this website is general advice only and has been prepared without considering your objectives, financial situation or needs.

You should not rely on any advice and/or information contained in this website and before making any investment decision we recommend that you consider whether it is appropriate for your situation and seek appropriate financial, taxation and legal advice. Please read our Financial Services Guide before deciding whether to obtain financial services from us.

: Pfizer (PFE) Balance Sheet & Financial Health Metrics