In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  1:14-cv-10150
Court:  Northern District of Illinois
Judge:  Harry D. Leinenweber
Status:  Pending

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was named co-lead class counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of brand or generic Opana ER 5, 10, 20, 30, and/or 40 mg tablets. Defendants are (a) Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. (collectively, “Endo”) and (b) Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Sherman Act when Endo and its generic competitor, Impax, entered into an anticompetitive reverse payment settlement agreement delaying generic competition for Opana ER, thereby maintaining the price of Opana ER at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the class. Plaintiffs are seeking overcharge damages incurred by the class caused by Defendants’ misconduct. 

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Order [End Payor Plaintiff's and Direct Purchaser Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class are Granted]
  2. Notice For Class Certification Mailing
  3. Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Settlement, Approval Of The Form And Manner Of Notice To The Class And Proposed Schedule For A Fairness Hearing
  4. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Support of Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Settlement, Approval Of The Form And Manner Of Notice To The Class And Proposed Schedule For A Fairness Hearing
  5. Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein In Support Of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Settlement, Approval Of The Form And Manner Of Notice To The Class And Proposed Schedule For A Fairness Hearing
  6. Order Granting Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Aproval Of Proposed Settlement, Approval Of The Form And Manner Of Notice To The Class And Proposed Schedule For A Fairness Hearing
  7. Settlement Notice

In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  13-MD-2445-MSG
Court:  Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Judge:  Mitchell S. Goldberg
Status:  Pending

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated federal antitrust laws by engaging in unlawful conduct to delay and impair competition by generic bioequivalent versions of Suboxone® tablets.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendant engaged in an unlawful, multifaceted scheme to destroy demand for Suboxone® tablets and coerce patients, physicians, and managed care entities away from Suboxone® tablets and over to Reckitt’s new Suboxone® film product, in order to force Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and members of the Class (defined below) to purchase branded Suboxone® film instead of generic bioequivalent versions of Suboxone® tablets (which Plaintiffs allege were less expensive), once they became available on the market.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also allege that, in order to give itself more time to destroy demand for Suboxone® tablets and move sales over to Suboxone® film, Defendant delayed the market entry of generic Suboxone tablets by manipulating FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy process.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that they and the other members of the Class were injured by being overcharged because of losing the opportunity to purchase less expensive, generic bioequivalent versions of Suboxone® tablets in place of the more expensive branded Suboxone® tablets and film, and by paying higher prices for Suboxone® tablets.

Defendant denies these allegations, and denies that any Class member is entitled to damages or other relief. Defendant also denies that any of its conduct violated any applicable law or regulation. No trial has been held.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Complaint
  2. District Court's Class Certification Order and Memorandum
  3. Third Circuit Order Affirming District Court's Class Certification Decision

In re: Namenda Direct Purchaser Litigation

Case Number:  15-cv-07488
Court:  Southern District of New York
Judge:  Colleen McMahon
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers.  A $750 million settlement was reached in 2019.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs alleged that Forest Laboratories, LLC, Actavis plc, Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd. (“Forest” or “Defendants”) violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Namenda IR into the United States market, causing injury to direct purchaser plaintiffs and members of the class by depriving them of the opportunity to purchase lower-priced generic versions of Namenda. The lawsuit claimed that, among other things, Forest engaged in a “hard switch” to shift the market to brand Namenda XR prior to the generic entry of Namenda IR, and that Forest entered into a “reverse payment” agreement with Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. to agree to delay Mylan’s and other generic manufacturers’ launch of generic Namenda IR. Plaintiffs argued that, as a result of these actions, Forest willfully maintained monopoly power in the market for Namenda IR in the United States, thereby maintaining the price of Namenda IR at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. First Amended Class Action Complaint
  2. Opinion on Class Certification and Summary Judgment
  3. Settlement Agreement
  4. Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
  5. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
  6. Declaration of Bruce Gerstein in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
  7. Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement
  8. Plan of Allocation
  9. Declaration Dr. Russell L. Lamb Related to Proposed Settlement Allocation Plan
  10. Class Notice
  11. Notice of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Awards for Named Plaintiffs
  12. Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Awards for Named Plaintiffs
  13. Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Awards for Named Plaintiffs
  14. Declaration of Charles Silver in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Awards for Named Plaintiffs
  15. Class Counsel's Notice of National Wholesalers Fee Objection Withdrawal and Brief in Further Support of Class Counsels Fee Request
  16. Supplemental Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Awards for the Named Plaintiffs
  17. Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement
  18. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement
  19. Order Scheduling Fairness Hearing Remotely
  20. Opinion and Order Approving the Settlement
  21. Opinion and Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards
  22. Claim Form
  23. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order of Distribution
  24. Memorandum in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order of Distribution
  25. Letter to Judge Colleen McMahon attaching Corrected Declaration of Phil Mattoon of Rust Consulting, Inc. in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion ofor an Order of Distribution
  26. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Notice that No Response or Opposition Has Been Filed to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order of Distribution
  27. Order Approving Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order of Distribution

In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  14-md-2521
Court:  Northern District of California
Judge:  William H. Orrick
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher was appointed co-lead counsel of the Direct Purchaser Class. A $166 million settlement was achieved on behalf of the Class.

The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by entering into an anticompetitive agreement that delayed or blocked the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of Lidoderm.  Specifically, the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that Endo and Teikoku agreed to pay Watson with brand Lidoderm patches and by agreeing not to start selling an authorized generic version of Lidoderm until 7.5 months after Watson launched its generic Lidoderm. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs further alleged that, in exchange for these payments, Watson agreed to delay selling its generic version of Lidoderm, thereby reducing competition from less expensive generic versions of Lidoderm. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that they were injured because they were overcharged for their purchases of brand and/or generic Lidoderm because of the delay in the availability of less expensive, generic versions of Lidoderm, including an authorized generic Lidoderm.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Complaint
  2. Class Certification Order
  3. Notice of Class Certification
  4. Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
  5. Order Finally Approving Settlement and Entering Final Judgment

In re: Prograf Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  1:11-md-2242-RWZ
Court:  District of Massachusetts
Judge:  Rya W. Zobel
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers.  A $98 million settlement was reached in 2015.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs alleged that Astellas Pharma US, Inc. violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Prograf into the United States market, causing injury to direct purchaser plaintiffs and members of the class by depriving them of the opportunity to purchase lower-priced generic versions of Prograf. The lawsuit claimed that, among other things, Astellas filed a baseless Citizen Petition with the FDA, which delayed the approval of generic Prograf. Plaintiffs argued that, as a result of this action, Astellas willfully maintained monopoly power in the market for Prograf in the United States, thereby maintaining the price of Prograf at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Settlement & Class Notice

In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  Master File No. 02-1390
Court:  District of New Jersey
Judge:  Faith S. Hochberg
Status:  Settled

Serving as co-lead counsel, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP achieved a $190 million recovery for the Direct Purchaser Class.

Direct purchasers claimed that Pfizer violated federal antitrust laws by illegally delaying the entry of generic versions of the prescription drug Neurontin.  The active ingredient in Neurontin is gabapentin anhydrous.  The lawsuit claimed that Pfizer delayed competition from less expensive generic versions of Neurontin by executing a multifaceted scheme involving, among other things, improperly listing certain patents with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. engaging in illegal promotion and sales of Neurontin for unapproved uses, filing and maintaining sham litigations with respect to certain patents, and making misrepresentations to the patent courts.  Plaintiffs alleged that through its scheme, Pfizer was able to maintain its monopoly in the market for gabapentin anhydrous, improperly causing direct purchasers of Neurontin to pay artificially inflated prices for gabapentin products.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Settlement & Class Notice
  2. Settlement Agreement
  3. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
  4. Motion for Attorneys Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, & Incentive Awards
  5. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
  6. Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Settlement

In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  12-md-2409-WGY
Court:  District of Massachusetts
Judge:  William G. Young
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of the direct purchaser class in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust LitigationNexium was the first reverse payment case to proceed to trial after the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 136 (2013).  Plaintiffs settled with one defendant (Dr. Reddy’s) prior to trial, and settled with a second defendant (Teva) during the trial but before the jury verdict.  Under the Dr. Reddy’s settlement, Dr. Reddy’s agreed to provide various forms of cooperation to plaintiffs during the trial involving the remaining defendants.  The Teva settlement provided for the payment of $24 million dollars for the benefit of the Direct Purchaser Class and two other groups of plaintiffs, the Individual Retailer Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class, which litigated this action alongside the Direct Purchaser Class.

The lawsuit claimed that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Nexium into the United States market, causing injury to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and members of the Direct Purchaser Class by causing them to pay higher prices for Nexium.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Settlement Agreement with Dr. Reddy's
  2. Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Dr. Reddy's
  3. Settlement Agreement with Teva
  4. Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Teva
  5. Motion for Expenses, Administrative Costs, and Incentive Awards
  6. Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in Support of Motion for Expenses, Administrative Costs, and Incentive Awards
  7. Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Dr. Reddy's Settlement
  8. Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Teva Settlement
  9. Order Granting Expenses, Administrative Costs, and Incentive Awards

King Drug Company of Florence v. Cephalon

Case Number:  2:06-cv-01797-MSG
Court:  Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Judge:  Mitchell S. Goldberg
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as sole lead counsel on behalf of class and direct purchasers through 2015, during which a $512 million partial settlement was reached.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by engaging in an unlawful scheme to delay or block the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of Provigil (modafinil).  Plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer of branded Provigil, Cephalon, entered into a series of unlawful, non-competition agreements, or horizontal market allocation agreements, with its prospective generic competitors, Defendants Teva, Barr, Mylan, and Ranbaxy (the “Generic Defendants”), whereby Cephalon agreed to pay the Generic Defendants, in exchange for agreements by the Generic Defendants to delay selling their generic versions of Provigil.  The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also allege that Cephalon committed Walker Process fraud in obtaining U.S. Patent No. RE 37,516 and then sought to enforce a fraudulently obtained patent to delay the market entry of generic versions of Provigil.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Cephalon
  2. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with
  3. Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with
  4. Order Certifying Direct Purchaser Class
  5. Memorandum Opinion of Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg Granting Certification of the Direct Purchaser Class
  6. Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Cephalon
  7. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Class Complaint
  8. Settlement Notice
  9. Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards
  10. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards
  11. Ex A - Gerstein Declaration in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards
  12. Supplemental Gerstein Declaration in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards
  13. Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Granting Final Approval of Settlement with Cephalon

  1. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Mylan and for Certification of Settlement Class
  2. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Mylan and for Certification of Settlement Class
  3. Gerstein Declaration in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Mylan and for Certification of Settlement Class
  4. Ex 1 - Settlement Agreement with Mylan
  5. Ex A to Settlement Agreement - Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement with Mylan and Certifying Settlement Class
  6. Ex B to Settlement Agreement - Proposed Class Notice
  7. Ex C to Settlement Agreement - Proposed Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Granting Final Approval of Settlement with Mylan
  8. Ex D to Settlement Agreement - Escrow Agreement
  9. Certificate of Service

In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  3:14-cv-02516 (SRU)
Court:  District of Connecticut
Judge:  Stefan R. Underhill
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers.  A $146 million settlement was reached in 2017.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs asserted that Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Barr, and Duramed violated antitrust laws by engaging in an unlawful scheme to delay or block the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of the prescription drug Aggrenox (extended release aspirin-dipyridamole).  The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Boehringer entered into several unlawful, non-competition agreements, or horizontal market allocation agreements, with its prospective generic competitor, Barr, whereby Boehringer agreed to pay Barr, in exchange for agreements by Barr to delay selling its generic version of Aggrenox.  After the challenged agreements were entered into, Barr was acquired by Teva.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
  2. Class & Settlement Notice
  3. Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement & Certifying Class
  4. Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards
  5. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
  6. Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal

In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  2:01-cv-1652
Court:  District of New Jersey
Judge:  Stanley R. Chesler
Status:  Settled

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as co-lead counsel for the direct purchaser class.  The Firm achieved a $60.2 million cash settlement on behalf of the class after almost 16 years of complex, intense, and hard-fought litigation.  The American Antitrust Institute recognized GGF for Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice for its ground-breaking work on this case challenging a “reverse payment” agreement between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies to delay generic competition for the drug K-Dur 20.

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs commenced this litigation in 2001, alleging that Schering, the brand manufacturer of K-Dur 20, entered into an unlawful anticompetitive settlement agreement with its prospective generic competitor, Upsher, to delay or block the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of K-Dur 20. Specifically, the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that Schering agreed to pay Upsher in exchange for Upsher’s agreement to delay selling its generic versions of K-Dur 20, thereby reducing competition from less expensive generic versions of K-Dur 20.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs further alleged that they and the other members of the Class were injured by being overcharged because of delay in the availability of less expensive, generic versions of K-Dur 20.

 

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
  2. Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
  3. Class Notice
  4. Motion for Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards
  5. Order Awarding Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards
  6. Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Settlement
© Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP 2022  
88 Pine Street 10th Floor,
New York, NY 10005
Attorney Advertising  
Disclaimer   Diversity Policy