| Vioxx - LSC Decision on FUNDING |
|
|
|
|
28/11/2005 Legal Services Decision re Funding of Vioxx Claims There has been an appeal on behalf of UK claimants to the Legal Services Commission on its previous decision not to provide funding for Vioxx cases to proceed in the UK. Regrettably, the appeal was not successful. The outcome of this did not come as a surprise. Potentially, only a judicial Review to assess the 'reasonableness' of the decision made by the Legal Services Commission remains. Merck & Co withdrew Vioxx from the Market on 30 September 2004; this effectively starts the clock in terms of the claimants 3 year UK limitation period to bring a claim. It is now 15 months into this period and claimants face the danger of 'running out of time' to bring a claim. The limitation period in New Jersey is set at 2 years and expires on 29 September 2006. Litigation is already at an advanced stage in the US. The fourth Vioxx trial is due to start in January 2006 and high volumes of cases are progressing to trial. Our initial enquiries made during the summer months lead us to the conclusion that the Legal Services Commission would not be providing legal funding for Vioxx claimants in the UK which would cost the public purse and the tax payer millions of pounds. In addition to this we investigated the possibility of private funding via legal expenses insurers. Due to the potential costs and complexity of litigation this option was also denied to our clients. Given the fact that there is no funding in the UK and the fact that the costs of litigation of this kind are so great they cannot directly be funded by the claimant, this effectively leaves no judicial remedy available for Vioxx claims in the UK. The impact of this with regards to UK claimants is that the legal remedy is only available in the Supreme Court of New Jersey. For these reasons we saw New Jersey as being the only option available to assist our clients. As anticipated, Merck & Co have made an application (Forum Non Conveniens) to the New Jersey Supreme Court to dismiss foreign claims from being heard in New Jersey. A major consideration in the courts decision will be the fact that there is no legal funding available in the UK and this effectively does not open the door to an alternative forum being available for cases to be heard. MSB believe we have a strong argument to oppose Merck & Co's application. Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court of New Jersey is the most appropriate court available to UK claimants, in that the decision lies with that court to hear the case; New Jersey is the domicile of Merck & Co. in that; -Merck & Co's evidential roots are born in New Jersey. -Merck & Co is a New Jersey corporation, where its headquarters are based and its decision making and marketing strategies are implemented. -Vioxx was conceived, designed, developed, in New Jersey. In addition to generation of marketing materials, packaging and Patient Information Leaflets. Furthermore -The Supreme Court of New Jersey has a substantial interest in policing the conduct and protecting the interests of its citizen corporations, such as Merck & Co. -Whilst Merck & Co market Vioxx world wide and therefore many countries have an interest in these cases, New Jersey has a greater interest in 'actions' that may have been committed by one of its corporations. |
