Product Liability Litigation. 18 Section 3.15
Product Liability Litigation. Section 3.8 of the Seller’s Disclosure Schedule lists each (a) product liability claim (including any claim based on strict products liability, negligence, other tort theories, breach of express or implied warranty) which has been asserted in writing against the Seller relating to the Delatestryl® Product since January 1, 2000; (b) judgment, order, decree, stipulation or injunction of any Governmental Authority, or any formal or informal investigation or inquiry conducted by any Governmental Authority and any subpoena in connection therewith, since January 1, 2000 that specifically names the Seller and relates to the Product Operations; and (c) action, suit or proceeding by or before any Governmental Authority to which the Seller is or has been a party since January 1, 2000 that relates to the Product Operations. Since January 1, 2000, the Seller has received no written notice alleging the need for any recall arising out of, and the Seller has not been held liable for, any injury to individuals or property as a result of the ownership, possession or use of any Delatestryl® Product developed, manufactured, sold, leased or delivered in connection with the Product Operations.
Product Liability Litigation. No product liability claims have ----------------------------- been asserted in a writing given to COR or any of its Subsidiaries or, to the knowledge of COR, threatened against COR or any of its Subsidiaries relating to products or product candidates developed, tested, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold by COR or any of its Subsidiaries. Except as described in the COR SEC Reports filed prior to the date hereof, there is no (i) action, suit or proceeding, claim, arbitration or investigation against COR or any of its Subsidiaries pending or, to the knowledge of COR, threatened other than those seeking only monetary damages in an amount, individually or together with similar matters, not in excess of $100,000 or (ii) judgment, order or decree outstanding against COR or any of its Subsidiaries.
Product Liability Litigation. Silzone Litigation and Insurance Receivables: The Borrower has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product with Silzone coating, which the Borrower stopped selling in January 2000. The Borrower has vigorously defended against the claims that have been asserted and will continue to do so with respect to any remaining claims. The Borrower's outstanding Silzone cases consist of one class action in Ontario that has been appealed by the plaintiffs, one individual case in Ontario and one individual case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In June 2012, the Ontario Court ruled in the Borrower's favor on all nine common class issues in a class action involving Silzone patients, and the case was dismissed. In September 2012, counsel for the class filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario and filed their initial appellate brief on February 28, 2013. The Borrower is scheduled to file its responsive brief in August 2013, and the appeal will likely be heard in November 2013. The individual case in Ontario requests damages in excess of $1 million (claiming unspecified special damages, health care costs and interest) and the individual case in Arizona requests damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars. Based on the Borrower’s historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed. The Borrower has recorded an accrual for probable legal costs, settlements and judgments for Silzone related litigation. The Borrower is not aware of any unasserted claims related to Silzone-coated products. For all Silzone legal costs incurred, the Borrower records insurance receivables for the amounts that it expects to recover based on its assessment of the specific insurance policies, the nature of the claim and the Borrower’s experience with similar claims. The Borrower’s current and final insurance layer for Silzone claims consists of $13 million of remaining coverage with two insurance carriers. To the extent that the Borrower’s future Silzone costs (the material components of which are settlements, judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) exceed its remaining insurance coverage, the Borrower would be responsible for such costs. The following table summarizes the Borrower’s Silzone legal accrual and related insurance receivable at March 30, 2013 and December 29, 2012 (in millions): Mar...
Product Liability Litigation. Discovery shall promptly inform PMPSA of the initiation of any (i) recalls, corrections or removals of Licensed Products in the Territory, and (ii) litigation or investigations in the Territory relating to the Licensed Product involving a claim of death or bodily injury (or allegations thereof) to an individual and shall provide PMPSA with regular written updates with respect thereto. If any such recalls, corrections, removals, litigation or investigations relate to the PMPSA Technology, then PMPSA shall have the right to audit the books, records and facilities relating to such Licensed Products (solely to the degree that Discovery has the right to grant any such access and solely to the degree such books, records and facilities relate to such litigation and investigation), and Discovery shall reasonably cooperate with PMPSA in connection therewith.
Product Liability Litigation. Section 3.10 of the Seller Disclosure Schedule lists each of the following, and except as set forth on Section 3.10 of the Seller Disclosure Schedule, none of the following exist: (a) any asserted product liability claim, including such claims based on strict product liability, negligence, other tort theories, or breach of express or implied warranty, or to the knowledge of the Seller, any such claim which has been threatened against any Vertex Party relating to any products of the Business nor to the knowledge of Seller is there a reasonable basis for such claim; (b) judgment, order, decree, stipulation or injunction of any Governmental Authority specifically naming any Vertex Party or, to the knowledge of the Seller, to which any Vertex Party is subject to (other than orders of general applicability), that relates to the Business; and (c) action, suit or proceeding by or before any Governmental Authority to which any Vertex Party is a party that relates to the Business. Except as set forth in Section 3.10 of the Seller Disclosure Schedule, there is no civil, criminal or administrative action, suit, hearing, or proceeding pending before any court, arbitrator or authority or, to the knowledge of the Seller, (i) threatened against any Vertex Party and (ii) relating to the Business or any of the Business Assets. Except as disclosed in Section 3.10 of the Seller Disclosure Schedule, there are currently no outstanding judgments, decrees or orders of any court or Governmental Authority against any Vertex Party, which relate to or arise out of the conduct of the Business or the use of the Business Assets.
Product Liability Litigation. (a) With respect to Product Liability Claims (i) alleging or involving pre-Effective Date ingestion or (ii) based upon or arising out of conduct affecting only a specific batch or portion of the product (including, but not limited to, Manufacturing issues) Manufactured before the Effective Date, in either case (i) or (ii), Amylin and Lilly will share responsibility for defense and costs as follows:
Product Liability Litigation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 10.1 and 10.2 above, the respective rights and obligations of the Parties with respect to Product Liability Claims shall be governed by Section 9.9.
Product Liability Litigation. Discovery shall promptly inform Chrysalis of the initiation of any (i) recalls, corrections or removals of Licensed Products, and (ii) litigation or investigations in the Territory relating to the Licensed Product involving a claim of death or bodily injury (or allegations thereof) to an individual and shall provide Chrysalis with regular written updates with respect thereto. If any such recalls, corrections, removals, litigation or investigations relate to the Chrysalis Technology, then Chrysalis shall have the right to audit the books, records and facilities relating to such Licensed Products (solely to the degree that Discovery has the right to grant any such access and solely to the degree such books, records and facilities relate to such litigation and investigation), and Discovery shall reasonably cooperate with Chrysalis in connection therewith.
Product Liability Litigation. Schedule 5.14 lists each (a) product liability claim (including any claim based on strict products liability, negligence, other tort theories, breach of express or implied warranty) that has been asserted in writing against the Seller or, to the Knowledge of the Seller, against any other Person, relating to the PhosLo Products since August 4, 2003; (b) Order of any Governmental Authority, or any formal investigation conducted by any Governmental Authority and any subpoena in connection therewith, since August 4, 2003 that specifically names the Seller or, to the Knowledge of the Seller, any other Person and relates to the PhosLo Business; and (c) Proceeding by or before any Governmental Authority to which the Seller or, to the Knowledge of the Seller, any other Person is or has been a party since August 4, 2003 that relates to the PhosLo Business. Since August 4, 2003, neither the Seller nor, to the Knowledge of the Seller, any other Person has received written notice alleging the need for any recall arising out of, and neither the Seller nor, to the Knowledge of the Seller, any other Person has been held liable for, any injury to individuals or property as a result of the ownership, possession or use of any PhosLo Product developed, manufactured, sold, leased or delivered in connection with the PhosLo Business.
