Peter Loftus — On Dow Jones Newswires, Is Running My May 19, 2009 Story — Tonight.

It is all about Judge Cavanaugh’s allowing the CafePharma posts to be included, as potential future pieces of evidence, in In Re Schering-Plough Vytorin Securities Fraud Class Action Litigation (Case No. 08-285, US Dist. Ct., NJ).

I ran an essentially identical story on May 19, 2008 — the morning after Judge Cavanaugh ruled, in the above matter. In any event, do go read all of Peter’s, tonight — he makes quite a clever story out of the history, in this federal MDL litigation:

. . . .In March 2007, the author of one post on the Schering section of CafePharma claimed to have a “buddy” in Schering’s research arm. “He says that the study is a bust,” the post stated. Another post in 2007 stated, “Heard it crashed and burned!” A third, detailed post about the study stated, “Adding Zetia to high dose generic statin provides no real benefit.” Vytorin is a single-pill combination of the drugs Zetia and simvastatin.

The lawsuit, filed by several U.S. state public-employee pension funds, claims the substance of these posts was confirmed in 2008 when the results were finally made public.

Schering-Plough asked the judge to exclude these posts from the lawsuit because their authors’ identities couldn’t be confirmed. It’s possible they were written by rival company reps, short sellers or other “mischief makers,” the company argued. CafePharma has a policy of not recording any identifying information of its posters.

Schering also tried to discredit CafePharma by calling it “the cyberspace equivalent of scrawls left on a men’s room wall.” It’s true — many posts are filled with profanity and slurs, and have little to do with the task of marketing prescription drugs.

But Judge Cavanaugh ruled that both the CafePharma postings and the confidential witness statements “are relevant to the ultimate issue” because they “purport to show the timing within which defendants became aware of the Enhance study’s results.”

Members of Congress, who are investigating Merck’s and Schering’s actions, also have sought information about the CafePharma posts. . . .

Very cool; on Dow Jones’ Wires — and an excellent story, quite well-told!

Not Sure Why Hans Becherer is Getting Director Stock Units, as of June 1, 2009. . . .

Or, “The Directors’ Stock Plan That Just Keeps Giving, and Giving. . . and Giving. . .”

All the members of the Board of Directors of Schering-Plough just received additional Stock Units, effective June 1, 2009 (and diclosed this afternoon to the SEC, on various Forms 4). Hans Becherer’s last day on the board was May 18, 2009. Yet he just received the very same Stock Units. His Form 4 also still lists him as a “Director“. Take a look — it is right under that link.

. . . .Hans Becherer — Director — Stock Units — 06/01/2009 Acquisition 1,567.62 Common Shares — Total Held: 23,536.08 Shares. . . .

[Cain v. Hassan, click at right.] I think I’ll look into this a little more — Mundy (who also retired) received them as well.

“A Good Start” — A Suggestion, For The Post-Becherer Compensation Era, at Sch-Merck

Now that Hans Becherer no longer presides over the Compensation Committee of the Schering-Plough Board of Directors (and no new Chair has been named), it would make sense for the remaining members to seriously consider the Citi approach (described below), if and when it comes time to award merger-related continuing payments [as well as here, and here]. Note that Citi is technically voiding some prior contractual commitments to the departed excutives, here. Schering-Plough’s board ought to do the same.

From this morning’s Wall Street Journal – do go read it all:

. . . .Citigroup already has doled out more than half of the roughly $100 million it promised to the former executives. But company officials recently decided not to proceed with the remaining payments, concluding that they wanted to avoid even the possibility of a public backlash over the money, people familiar with the situation said. . . .

Fresh in the minds of Citigroup executives was this spring’s ire over American International Group Inc.’s retention bonuses to employees in its financial-products division. Top executives at the giant insurer argued they couldn’t cancel the legally binding payments. . . .

Under the terms of exit agreements with the departed executives, Citigroup is contractually obliged to make the payments. But bank officials essentially are wagering that the former executives will conclude that it would be publicly embarrassing for them to file lawsuits against the. . . company. . . .

Indeed. Are you getting this, C. Robert Kidder (recently-tapped to help oversee and run Chrysler), Patricia F. Russo and Jack L. Stahl?