On February 6, 2024, the court in In re: Seroquel XR (Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate) Antitrust Litigation, No. 20-1076-CFC, certified a class of persons or entities who directly purchased 50mg, 150mg, 200mg, and/or 300mg strength of brand or generic Seroquel XR tablets between August 2, 2015 and April 30, 2017, and appointed Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP lead counsel for the class.  Defendants are (a) AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., AstraZeneca L.P. (collectively, “AstraZeneca”), (b) Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Handa”), and (c) Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”).  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Sherman Act when AstraZeneca and its generic competitor, Handa, entered into an anticompetitive reverse payment settlement agreement delaying generic competition for Seroquel XR, thereby maintaining the price of Seroquel XR at supra-competitive levels.  Par joined the alleged illegal contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade when it acquired the rights to Handa’s generic Seroquel XR.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages in the form of overcharges that class members paid to Defendants as a result of the misconduct.

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that Pfizer and Ranbaxy violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully impairing and delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Lipitor into the United States market. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that absent the unlawful conduct, Ranbaxy would have launched generic Lipitor earlier than November 30, 2011, the date on which Ranbaxy actually launched Lipitor. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that the prices for brand and generic Lipitor were higher than they would have been absent the challenged unlawful conduct.

Pfizer and Ranbaxy deny all of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ allegations, including claims for damages or any other relief.

The litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Peter J. Sheridan.

On February 14, 2024, Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a settlement class, and preliminary approval for a proposed settlement of $93 million between Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and Pfizer. Ranbaxy is not part of the proposed settlement. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ claims against Ranbaxy remain pending.

On March 11, 2024, Judge Sheridan granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement with Pfizer, and scheduled a fairness hearing for June 12, 2024.

The complaint against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ proposed settlement with Pfizer, Judge Sheridan’s preliminary approval order, and associated documents, can be found in the links below.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was named lead class counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of brand or generic Exforge tablets. Defendants are Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Novartis AG (collectively, “Novartis”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Sherman Act when Novartis and its generic competitor, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., entered into an anticompetitive reverse payment license agreement delaying generic competition for Exforge, thereby maintaining the price of Exforge 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. 

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. 

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.

On October 30, 2023, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg, who is presiding over the litigation, granted preliminary approval to a proposed $385 million settlement on behalf of the previously certified class of direct purchaser plaintiffs. A hearing on final approval of the proposed settlement was held on February 27, 2024, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19106. On February 27, 2024, after the hearing on final approval, final approval to the settlement was granted.

The settlement, and associated information, can be found in the documents below.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of the direct purchaser class in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation.  Nexium 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.