Pfizer gets its panties into a bunch over contracts cited in criminal proceedings in two jurisdictions - " judicial estoppel" anyone?

Unable to cross-post this article, so here is the link and a “cut and paste”::

Pfizer is tripping over its arguments

So here it is!

·        Pfizer is tripping over its arguments

·        These lawsuits are revelatory.

Warner Mendenhall

Oct 22, 2024

Pfizer is contradicting itself between the Brook Jackson case and the Kansas case.

1.     Contract Conditions:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer claims the contract had multiple "specific terms for Pfizer's performance" and various contractual conditions.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed the contract had only "a single condition of payment: Pfizer's delivery of an FDA authorized or approved vaccine for COVID-19."

2.     Statement of Work Requirements:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer argues there were many contractual obligations in the Statement of Work.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer specifically rejected the "allegation that the [Statement of Work] somehow tied payment to Pfizer's compliance with every particular of the clinical protocol or related FDA regulations" as "mistaken and refuted by the [Statement of Work] itself."

3.     Clinical Trials:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer suggests clinical trials were part of contractual requirements.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer stated that the Statement of Work "states explicitly that Pfizer's 'clinical trials' are 'out-of-scope,' 'not related' to the agreement, and that the relevant studies were undertaken at Pfizer's expense 'without the use of Government funding.'"

4.     Contract Clarity:

·        In Kansas case: Pfizer argues for complex contractual obligations.

·        In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed "the agreement is crystal clear" that delivery was the only contract condition.

Kansas could raise the doctrine of judicial estoppel meaning a party cannot just change a position to gain advantage when you asserted a different position in a prior case.  The test is simple:

·        Clear contradiction in positions.

·        To gain tactical advantages in different courts.

·        Holding Pfizer accountable for its position would protect judicial integrity.

The documents are good reading:

Pfizer notice of removal

Kansas motion to remand

Pfizer opposition

·        Subscribe to CovidLawCast.Com

Launched 3 years ago

DISCLAIMER: not legal advice but general information, not to be construed as legal advice applicable to your particular situation. No attorney-client relationship is created unless an engagement letter is signed by you and your attorney.

End of cut and paste

Onwards!!!

Please take a (free or paid) subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here:  https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan