Justices on the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday pushed a Merck attorney to justify his interpretation of liability in a contract, seeking an explanation for why the company has changed its stance and asking whether it’s attempting to conceal its true level of liability for talc litigation.

Merck is seeking confirmation that Bayer is liable for talc claims that have been filed against both companies since 2014, when Bayer bought product lines from Merck in a $14 billion deal. The Court of Chancery dismissed Merck’s claims in April.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]