Merck's desperation evident in Vioxx trial

While only time will tell if Merck is able to prevail over Frederick "Mike" Humeston in the second Vioxx lawsuit trial in Atlantic City, New Jersey, if one were to interpret the signals from the company's lawyers, it is clear that they expect a defeat. After asking for mistrials as many as five times, Merck's legal team asked for a "directed verdict" after Chris Seeger, the plaintiff's attorney, wrapped up his case.

So what is a directed verdict?

A very simple definition of a "directed verdict" is a ruling made by a judge at the end of the presentation of evidence by a plaintiff's attorney, but prior to the start of the defendant's presentation. At this point, the judge has concluded that the plaintiff has done such a terrible job in support of her case, that it would be a waste of time to proceed any further. The case is then decided in the favor of the defendant.

If anyone has been following this case, only an idiot would think that a directed verdict is needed. On the contrary, it seems that while Seeger may not have done as well as Mark Lanier, he still has a very fair chance of getting a decision in his favor. No surprise then that Judge Carol Higbee rejected Merck's request.

Why is Merck so desperate this time?

A lot is at stake. While the company might try to downplay two defeats in a row, a lot more skepticism will develop about the company's arguments about doing the right thing about selling Vioxx despite knowing its dangers. So the best way to deal with this case is to delay it - a mistrial will clearly help Merck. A look at the Merck's stock chart shows that investors are clearly expecting a Merck defeat.

Company's stock has continued to slide since the recall of Vioxx last year and yet another defeat will put pressure on the company to settle - a huge liability that is expected to be as large as $65 billions by some analysts.