Previously on May 31, 2024, the Superior Court of Delaware issued an Order Denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the General Causation Experts in the Case of: "In Re: Zantac Ranitidine Products Liability" (Case Number N22C-09-101 ZAN in the Delaware Superior Court).
Following that Denial, the Defendants filed a Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal. Today (July 1, 2024), the Court issued an Order DENYING this Motion for Certification. We currently believe that this news may be Neutral to Incrementally Negative for the share price of GSK plc (GSK). While its appears that the Delaware Supreme Court could still decide to accept this Interlocutory Appeal, we currently believe that the Denial of Certification from the lower Court greatly decreases the odds of an acceptance.
The Court wrote the following in its Order:
"To accept Defendants’ position that interlocutory review is warranted merely because the issue decided might “determine Plaintiffs’ ability to prove the essential element of causation” and thus, must be important,28 would mean every dispositive motion ruling would clear the first hurdle to interlocutory review. This is contrary to Rule 42’s provisions that call for review only in exceptional circumstances.
Under Rule 42(b)(iii)(G), the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that interlocutory review of the Order would not terminate the litigation. Defendants argue that if review is granted, it may terminate the litigation because without general causation experts, they will undoubtedly attain summary judgment. 27. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that forcing the issue now, without the benefit of a trial record—as no expert has actually provided testimony—is not prudent. This pre-trial issue, as mentioned earlier, is in infant stages. Defendants will undoubtedly appeal any adverse jury verdict on general causation. Interlocutory review would allow for two bites of the appellate apple. Again, this is not the intended purpose of Rule 42.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that certification to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware for disposition in accordance with Rule 42 is REFUSED"
The Court's Order is attached as a PDF file.
Background information:
GSK writes the following regarding this ongoing Case in the Delaware Superior Court:"GSK has been named as a defendant by approximately 78,000 plaintiffs in several US state jurisdictions. Of these plaintiffs, approximately 72,000 plaintiffs filed in Delaware. Most ofthe Delaware plaintiffs allege a cancer other than the five cancers being pursued by Plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding. The Delaware court held a general causation hearing on the admissibility of expert testimony forthe 10 cancers Plaintiffs have decided to pursue (breast, colorectal, kidney, prostate, pancreatic, lung, bladder, liver, esophageal, and stomach) on 22-24 January 2024."
Sincerely,
Justin Wilcox, Senior Research Analyst
MDC Financial Research, LLC
Mobile: (415) 515-9063
Justin@MDCFinancial.com
Disclosure: Nobody at MDC Financial Research currently owns any positions in GSK plc (GSK).
-------------------------
Copyright © 2024, MDC Financial Research, LLC (“MDC”). This e-mail is only for the use of paid subscribers to MDC’s “Event-Driven Legal℠” investment-research service, and you should not disseminate, distribute, and/or alter this e-mail. If you are not authorized to receive this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. There may be errors and/or omissions in this e-mail. Any opinion(s) expressed in this e-mail reflects MDC’s judgment as of the timestamp on this e-mail. We are not attorneys, and this email does not constitute legal advice. To manage your subscription, please call: (510) 894-4476.
-------------------------