As a result, it was actually in Bayer’s
This finding potentially has broad implications for policymakers
interested in encouraging transparency in the civil justice system. be sure, the transparency that resulted from this litigation was very
limited – the settlement
terms were never made public by Bayer information learned by the plaintiffs
or the during
the discovery process made public. in more transparency and horizontal
But the settlement process resulted equity among plaintiffs than is
common in tort litigation.
To the extent
should consider it possible.
policymakers value this result encourage the conditions that
In the following sections, I briefly review the history of cerivastatin, describe the economic literature on settlements and mass torts, and informally analyze cerivastatin litigation using the economic
models developed in consider the public
the economic and legal literature. welfare and policy implications of
To conclude, I these findings.
THE RISE AND FALL OF CERIVASTATIN
In launched fanfare.
April of 1997, the pharmaceutical division of Bayer A.G. its new cholesterol-reducing drug, cerivastatin, with great This statin, marketed as Baycol in the United States and by
4 variety of other names elsewhere, reduced “bad” LDL-cholesterol. It also had important business implications for Bayer. Competitors had already released other statins, which had proved to be a
It was marketed under a variety of names in different
3 I focus primarily upon the incentives because as the only party involved in all of most critical role in structuring settlement
For the purposes of consistency, this
faced by the defendant the litigation, it has the agreements. chapter refers to this drug