Rendimento real das famílias portuguesas com maior queda da OCDE no início do ano

[Visitante]

Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. announces that it has sued Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck" or the "Company") (NYSE:MRK) and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The shareholder lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merck & Co., Inc. on the open market and/or through Merck's Stock Investment Plan between October 22, 2003 and September 29, 2004, inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Merck and its Chairman and CEO, Raymond V. Gilmartin, violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market in connection with the safety of its drug Vioxx. These misstatements have had the effect of materially overstating Merck's actual and projected revenues and earnings, and as result they artificially inflated the market price of Merck's common stock during the class period.

If you wish to discuss your rights and interests, or if you have information relevant to the lawsuit, you may contact Carol V. Gilden, Melinda J. Morales, or Conor R. Crowley at Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., by calling a toll-free number 1-800-470-6824, or by sending an e-mail to investorhelp@muchshelist.com. Your e-mail should refer to Merck.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material information during the Class Period concerning the safety profile of its arthritis drug Vioxx, and that a growing body of evidence demonstrated that patients who used the drug for more than 18 months were exposed to an increased risk of heart attack. Despite their knowledge that there were serious issues concerning the safety profile of Vioxx and of the mounting adverse data from trials worldwide supporting the conclusion that long term use of Vioxx increased significantly the risk of heart attack, defendants failed to take appropriate financial steps and as a result, throughout the class period, reported false financial results and continued to issue false and misleading projected revenues and earnings, in press releases and filings with the SEC. Merck's actual and projected revenues and earnings disseminated by defendants were artificially inflated because: a) Merck failed to record appropriate reserves for legal claims arising out of heart damage suffered by users of Vioxx; b) Merck failed to take appropriate reserves for the inventories of Vioxx already sold to wholesalers and others which would have to be repurchased by Merck in light of the heart safety concerns attached to Vioxx and the probable withdrawal of the drug from the market; c) defendants lacked any reasonable basis in fact for their statements that for 2004, Vioxx would contribute approximately $2.5 billion in annual revenues and significant operating profit in light of the known heart safety concerns associated with long term use of Vioxx and the probable withdrawal of the drug from the market.

On September 30, 2004, the Company announced that it was immediately withdrawing Vioxx from world markets after a data safety monitoring board, overseeing a long-term study of the drug, recommended that the study be halted because of an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events among members of the study group. The Company's sudden decision to withdraw Vioxx was in stark contrast to its prior public announcements during the Class Period touting the safety of Vioxx and other public disclosures by the Company and its representatives that specifically refuted criticism of the drug lodged by respected clinicians. In response to the announcement, on September 30, 2004 the price of Merck's common stock plunged to end down over 27% from the previous day's close.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merck & Co., Inc. on the open market and/or through Merck's Stock Investment Plan during the Class Period and if you meet certain other legal requirements, you may file a motion in the Court where the lawsuit has been filed to serve as a lead plaintiff. You must file your motion no later than November 30, 2004.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. The requirements for serving as a lead plaintiff are set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4).

Much Shelist's history is one of experience, leadership and results. For more than 25 years, Much Shelist has represented plaintiffs in class action litigation in federal and state courts across the United States. The firm has successfully prosecuted cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer fraud, unlawful business practices and insurance company fraud. Under Much Shelist's leadership, class members have obtained judgments and settlements in excess of $4 billion.

[Vic]

When Merck & Co. (MRK) pulled its big-selling painkiller Vioxx off the market in September, Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin said the company was "really putting patient safety first." He said the study findings prompting the withdrawal, which tied Vioxx to heart-attack and stroke risk, were "unexpected."

But internal Merck e-mails and marketing materials as well as interviews with outside scientists show that the company fought forcefully for years to keep safety concerns from destroying the drug's commercial prospects, according to Monday's Wall Street Journal.

Merck's first worry, in the mid-to-late 1990s, was that its drug would show greater heart risk than cheaper painkillers that were harsh on the stomach but were believed to reduce the risk of heart attacks. Several company officials discussed in e-mails how to design a study that would minimize the unflattering comparison, even while admitting to themselves that it would be difficult to conceal.

By 2000, one e-mail suggests Merck recognized that Vioxx didn't merely lack the protective features of old painkillers but that something about the drug itself was linked to an increased heart risk. On March 9, 2000, the company's powerful research chief, Edward Scolnick, e-mailed colleagues that the cardiovascular events "are clearly there" and called it a "shame." He compared Vioxx to other drugs with known side effects and wrote, "there is always a hazard." But the company's public statements after Dr. Scolnick's e-mail continued to reject the link between Vioxx and increased intrinsic risk.

As academic researchers increasingly raised questions about Vioxx's heart safety, the company struck back hard. It even sued one Spanish pharmacologist, trying unsuccessfully to force a correction of an article he wrote. In another case, it warned that a Stanford University researcher would "flame out" unless he stopped giving "anti-Merck" lectures, according to a letter of complaint written to Merck by a Stanford professor. A company training document listed potential tough questions about Vioxx and said in capital letters, "DODGE!"

--Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Anna Wilde Mathews and Barbara Martinez contributed to this article.

[maya]

Quer dizer.. claro que seria um bom short!...
A questão é: As as correctoras entram no esquema?
É que toda a gente sabe que vai descer... (Só um milagre a salvava de descer mais!) (25 mil pessoa é demais... 2 ou 3! ainda podia passar!...)


Ou seja... tem de haver limites, as correctoras têm de alguma forma de estabelecer limites para adquirir posições curtas não? (Desculpem lá a pergunta... mas ainda tou a esntrar no esquema!)

(Porque assim toda a gente fica rico da noite para o dia! (Há quem consiga ok! Mas é algo complicado... sem informação previlegiada.)

Portanto sei que tem de haver limites... mas como funcionam esse limites... são as correctoras que simplemente deixam de emitir "unilateralmente" e por decisão interna, estes titulos(warrants...)? Ou existe outro mecanismo? (mais oficial ou coisa parecida!?)

[Vic]

A queda já vai em 10%, pois começaram as acções judiciais contra a firma por parte das familias das vitimas.

Hoje soube-se atraves do Wall Street Journal que, imagina a firma tentou calar opiniões de outros investigadores independentes que podiam causar "mossa" na comercialização do medicamento e tentou manipular provas médicas.

Parece que estamos perante assassinos...que poseram o interesse economico acima de milhares vidas humanas!!!

Ate onde isto ira Cair, se é que já vale alguma coisa...

[fernandovet]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/st ... DCFA58E%7D

[Visitante]

Para short deverà ser bom pois pessimismo devera aumentar, com lavar da roupa suja.

[Visitante]

Será ainda um bom short?

[Vic]

Depois de retirar do mercado, um dos seus principais medicamentos o Vioxx (anti-inflamatorio), em face das conclusões de um estudo, que indicava que a utilização deste medicamento duplicava o risco de ataques cardiacos bem como embolias cerebrais.

Hoje o The Wall Street Journal informou, que um estudo recente da FDA - Direcção de Alimentos e Medicamentos dos Estados Unidos, indica que terão falecido mais de 27 mil doentes com ataques cardiacos e mortes subitas por problemas cardiacos, devido a tratamentos com o Vioxx.

Varios gabinetes de advogados, já estão a preparar processos, para intentar várias acções e pedidos de indeminização a esta empresa, pelas mortes causadas.

E isto deixa-me a pensar, como a vida muda de um dia para o outro...

Como é que uma das mais conceituadas empresas do sector farmaceutico, se ve assim envolvida de repente em tamanha desgraça.