Endo To Pay $54 million to settle Americal Medical Systems Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

The American Medical Systems (AMS) Inc. unit of Endo Healthy Solutions Inc. has agreed to pay $54 million to settle lawsuits alleging its transvaginal mesh implants have injured women. The actual number of the lawsuits encompassed by this settlement is unknown at this time. Some of the names of the products this covers include Apogee, Elevate and Perigee.

This is just the beginning for Endo; the majority of the 5,000 lawsuits filed against AMS have been consolidated before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia. The first AMS trial is scheduled for December of this year.  But that won't be the first mesh trial before Judge Goodwin:  C.R. Bard is slated to defend its mesh product in a trial that will start on July 8th.

It's unclear what the per case average is on these settlements.  As a result we can't fully assess this settlement.  But it has the court's approval, so it looks like it will hold up.  As we learn more details, we'll be able to comment on whether this is a good settlement or to low of a settlement.

 Regardless of valuation, we can say that the mesh manufacturers may well be starting to see the incredible exposure they face here. Lawyers from around the country have been working up mesh cases. As more and more make their way to trial, we might see the beginnings of more active settlement.

Washington State victims of transvaginal mesh:  So how does this affect victims of transvaginal mesh who reside in Washington State or elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest? First, if you have a potential claim, you should see a Washington State transvaginal mesh attorney right away. Second, if you already have an attorney, the attorney should be tracking these developments so as to assess your lawsuit.  Like with any mass-tort, the TVM cases are new and continue to evolve.

Post-note: Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc purchased AMS for $2.9 billion back in 2011. AMS had been an attractive target; it's devices and treatments generated $542.3 million in revenue in 2010. The purchase propelled a 32% increase in the stock of AMS.  AMS certainly has been a profit machine, so much that at the time of the acquisition, Endo's CEO, Dave Holveck was hoping to generate $1 billion in urology sales the subsequent year. For those suffering from the complications of mesh, it must be difficult to hear about the drive for business in the "urology or pelvic area."  It's no surprise that as massive amounts of baby boomers continue to age, that the markets will seek to provide products for this demographic. But since the manufacturers and distributors of  transvaginal mesh put business profits ahead of safety testing, resulting in great harm to  countless women around the world,  listening to this kind of business focused talk solidifies the point, and reopens a painful emotional wound. These companies have the money to right the wrong they have done here. It's up to us to remember that and to relentlessly push to make them pay.

Endo To Pay $54 million to settle Americal Medical Systems Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

The American Medical Systems (AMS) Inc. unit of Endo Healthy Solutions Inc. has agreed to pay $54 million to settle lawsuits alleging its transvaginal mesh implants have injured women. The actual number of the lawsuits encompassed by this settlement is unknown at this time. Some of the names of the products this covers include Apogee, Elevate and Perigee.

This is just the beginning for Endo; the majority of the 5,000 lawsuits filed against AMS have been consolidated before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston, West Virginia. The first AMS trial is scheduled for December of this year.  But that won't be the first mesh trial before Judge Goodwin:  C.R. Bard is slated to defend its mesh product in a trial that will start on July 8th.

It's unclear what the per case average is on these settlements.  As a result we can't fully assess this settlement.  But it has the court's approval, so it looks like it will hold up.  As we learn more details, we'll be able to comment on whether this is a good settlement or to low of a settlement.

 Regardless of valuation, we can say that the mesh manufacturers may well be starting to see the incredible exposure they face here. Lawyers from around the country have been working up mesh cases. As more and more make their way to trial, we might see the beginnings of more active settlement.

Washington State victims of transvaginal mesh:  So how does this affect victims of transvaginal mesh who reside in Washington State or elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest? First, if you have a potential claim, you should see a Washington State transvaginal mesh attorney right away. Second, if you already have an attorney, the attorney should be tracking these developments so as to assess your lawsuit.  Like with any mass-tort, the TVM cases are new and continue to evolve.

Post-note: Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc purchased AMS for $2.9 billion back in 2011. AMS had been an attractive target; it's devices and treatments generated $542.3 million in revenue in 2010. The purchase propelled a 32% increase in the stock of AMS.  AMS certainly has been a profit machine, so much that at the time of the acquisition, Endo's CEO, Dave Holveck was hoping to generate $1 billion in urology sales the subsequent year. For those suffering from the complications of mesh, it must be difficult to hear about the drive for business in the "urology or pelvic area."  It's no surprise that as massive amounts of baby boomers continue to age, that the markets will seek to provide products for this demographic. But since the manufacturers and distributors of  transvaginal mesh put business profits ahead of safety testing, resulting in great harm to  countless women around the world,  listening to this kind of business focused talk solidifies the point, and reopens a painful emotional wound. These companies have the money to right the wrong they have done here. It's up to us to remember that and to relentlessly push to make them pay.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Victory for Victims of Asbesos Exposure

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied a bid for certiorari by Pfizer Inc. Pfizer sought to have the Court hear its argument as to why a bankruptcy injunction barring asbestos personal injury cases against a defunct Pfizer subsidiary should be reinstated. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the ruling of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, means that state court lawsuits filed against Pfizer can proceed.

Background:

In 1968, Pfizer acquired Quigley Co. Inc, a former manufacturer of insulation and other products for the steel industry.  Subsequent to the acquisition some of Quigley's asbestos-containing products began to include Pfizer's name and trademark. Facing 160,000 asbestos lawsuits (for Quigley and Pfizer) in 2004 Quiglely filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and an injunction enjoining most of the asbestos claims.

Enter the Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Having filed asbestoslawsuits against Pfizer in Pennsylvania in 1999, Mr. Angelos moved for summary judgment under a theory the "apparent manufacturer."  Pfizer filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the injunction barring lawsuits and the bankruptcy court granted Pfizer's motion. But the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the ruling and found that"Pfizer's liability arises out of its sponsorship of a defective product, not its corporate affiliation."  In essence, the injunction did not bar claims based on Pfizer's name being on Quigley's asbestos containing products, and thus the Angelos firm has its ticket to pursue its personal injury claims in Pennsylvania State Courts.  This was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

What this means:

Yesterday's denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is now the end of the line for Pfizer's attempt to halt the litigation. Onward it goes.   In an era of conservatism from the U.S. Supreme Court, this ruling provides a glimmer of hope for victims of asbestos exposure suffering from lung cancer or mesothelioma.  Although the action will be litigated in Pennsylvania, the ruling is good news for allvictims of asbestos exposure and their families, including those from Washington State, Oregon and all of the Pacific Northwest.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari: Victory for Victims of Asbesos Exposure

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied a bid for certiorari by Pfizer Inc. Pfizer sought to have the Court hear its argument as to why a bankruptcy injunction barring asbestos personal injury cases against a defunct Pfizer subsidiary should be reinstated. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the ruling of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, means that state court lawsuits filed against Pfizer can proceed.

Background:

In 1968, Pfizer acquired Quigley Co. Inc, a former manufacturer of insulation and other products for the steel industry.  Subsequent to the acquisition some of Quigley's asbestos-containing products began to include Pfizer's name and trademark. Facing 160,000 asbestos lawsuits (for Quigley and Pfizer) in 2004 Quiglely filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and an injunction enjoining most of the asbestos claims.

Enter the Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Having filed asbestos  lawsuits against Pfizer in Pennsylvania in 1999, Mr. Angelos moved for summary judgment under a theory the "apparent manufacturer."  Pfizer filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the injunction barring lawsuits and the bankruptcy court granted Pfizer's motion. But the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the ruling and found that  "Pfizer's liability arises out of its sponsorship of a defective product, not its corporate affiliation."  In essence, the injunction did not bar claims based on Pfizer's name being on Quigley's asbestos containing products, and thus the Angelos firm has its ticket to pursue its personal injury claims in Pennsylvania State Courts.  This was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

What this means:

Yesterday's denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is now the end of the line for Pfizer's attempt to halt the litigation. Onward it goes.   In an era of conservatism from the U.S. Supreme Court, this ruling provides a glimmer of hope for victims of asbestos exposure suffering from lung cancer or mesothelioma.  Although the action will be litigated in Pennsylvania, the ruling is good news for all  victims of asbestos exposure and their families, including those from Washington State, Oregon and all of the Pacific Northwest.

New York Times Slams Asbestos Bill

A big shout out is in order to the New York Times Editorial Board for criticizing the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013.  This is a bill that House Republicans have attempted to push through the House Judiciary Committee.  The bill would make it more difficult for plaintiffs injured by exposure to asbestos to receive fair compensation they are entitled to under the law.  The New York Times Editorial Board came out blazing with their op-ed piece. It reads as follows:

Republicans rammed a bill through the House Judiciary Committee last month that would make it harder for plaintiffs injured by asbestos to get fair compensation. The bill is supposedly designed to root out fraud and abuse, but there is no persuasive evidence of any significant fraud or abuse. Before plunging ahead with this misguided attempt to protect asbestos companies from lawsuits, Congress ought to commission an objective study of whether there is even a problem that needs fixing.

Millions of workers were injured by asbestos over the years and thousands of suits were filed against asbestos companies, which often were aware of the dangers but concealed the risks from workers and the public. Dozens of companies declared bankruptcy and established trusts, financed with company money, to pay the present and future claims against them. The trusts typically pay only a small percentage of the value of a claim. Plaintiffs are also free to sue companies that have not gone bankrupt.

The Republican bill, known as the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013, would allow asbestos companies to demand information from the trusts for virtually any reason, forcing the trusts to devote limited resources to responding to fishing expeditions that will slow the process of paying claims.

The bill would also increase the burden on claimants to supply information. But it puts virtually no burdens on asbestos companies, like disclosing the settlements they have reached with plaintiffs or requiring them to reveal where their products were used and when, so that workers know which companies or trusts might be liable for their injuries.

Fair-minded members of Congress should ask the Government Accountability Office to determine whether there is significant fraud in asbestos claims before enacting a law that makes it harder to obtain fair compensation.

Editorial Board pieces can sometimes underwhelm; other times they can read as quite pedantic.  Here, they got it right.  Bravo for calling out the ominous legislative attempt here.  Here's hoping the rest of the members of Congress will read this piece and look further into this faulty bill.  It doesn't even deserve an up or down vote: it needs to be pulled.

Their good work has me reading up on who exactly sits on the NY Times Editorial Board.  You can check them out here.