Clark, Perdue & List's Blog

On September 6, 2006, Merck's board of directors said that a 20-month investigation paid for by Merck found that its senior management acted responsibly in developing and marketing Vioxx.

The 1,700-page report, which cost $21 million, contains some minor criticisms of employee actions but concludes that "management acted with integrity and had legitimate reasons for making the decisions that it made, in light of the knowledge available at the time."

After Vioxx was withdrawn, Merck's board hired six people outside of the company to evaluate allegations that it covered up the cardiovascular risks of the drug. Merck hired John Martin, a lawyer with the corporate defense law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, to head the investigation. Mark Goodman, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton who worked on the investigation, said that the members of the team were not asked it they have any conflicts of interest in participating in the project.

Martin said that Merck acted appropriately and that the Vioxx situation was unavoidable.

Attorney Mark Lanier, who represented Carol Ernst in the $253 million Texas Vioxx verdict (see page 1), called the report "an absurd, expensive PR stunt" and wondered if anyone would consider "a jury independent if I paid them $21 million." He said it was an attempt to influence Wall Street analysts and potential jury members.

It is unlikely that the report could be used in a trial, because of problems in meeting the requirements of the rules of evidence in federal and state courts.

The report criticized some of Merck's marketing, public relations programs, and responses to doctors who raised concerns about Vioxx's safety.

Merck says the report confirms the company's position that it never knowingly put patients at risk.