Well, the questioning doesn't exactly tie Merck's position in settling the products liability claims for $4.85 billion, to the notion that Merck expects more of securities plaintiffs (as to "storm warnings") than it does of itself, as to safety -- but the embers of my earlier post do appear in the Justices' flames, as reported by The Wall Street Journal tonight:
. . . ."Companies can't have it both ways," Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for Merck. . . .
Justice Stephen Breyer said Merck's position, in effect, would require plaintiffs to file lawsuits before they had enough evidence to back them up. "That doesn't make sense to me," he said. . . .
This may well make for tougher sledding in Ex-CEO Hassan's (and Ex-EVP Cox's) defense of the Pharmacia/Celebrex launch-era securities fraud claims.