13th June, 2010
Though disappointed by the recent brief filed by the office of the Solicitor General of the United States of America asking that countryâ€
In November 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court had asked the Solicitor Generalâ€
But Pfizer had argued that a private company cannot be sued in the United States especially under the jurisdiction of the Alien Tort Statute on which the cases were filed and argued that the case should be dismissed.
While a trial court in New York upheld Pfizerâ€
In November, 2009, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor Generalâ€
Specifically Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States on whether jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) can extend to a private actor based on alleged state action by a foreign government where there is no allegation that the government knew of or participated in the specific acts by the private actor claimed to have violated international law.
But in the brief filed before the court recently the Solicitor General of the United States said the Supreme Court should not hear Pfizer’s appeal. In the statement filed by the Solicitor General, it said among others that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
Despite this setback, Pfizer said it is still hopeful of getting judgment from the United Statesâ€
“Although we are disappointed that the Solicitor Generalâ€
“Pfizer continues to believe that the Court of Appealsâ€
The company said its 1996 Trovan clinical study, which it had all along insisted was conducted with the approval of the Nigerian government, the consent of the participantsâ€
—Oluokun Ayorinde/ Abuja