Via The Wall Street Journal, here’s the inane argument being tried by Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that defended itself before the Supreme Court this week
“„During an hourlong oral argument, Merck was in the unusual position of arguing that investors should have filed their lawsuits earlier because there was an overwhelming amount of public information available by late 2001 suggesting the possibility the company committed securities fraud. Merck, however, also argued that the investors don’t have enough evidence to make a case against the company.
“„What happened in 2001? Merck-funded researchers published the original clinical trial showing a fourfold increase in heart attack risk from the pain reliever. At the time, those results were explained away by Merck and the researchers with the suggestion that the comparison drug was cardioprotective.
“„In other words, the risks should have been known to investors even though Merck was denying those risks existed.