In re: Seroquel XR (Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate) Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  20-1076-CFC
Court:  District of Delaware
Judge:  Colm F. Connolly
Status:  Pending

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.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Order Granting Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification
  2. Notice to Class

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  12-cv-2389
Court:  District of New Jersey
Judge:  Peter J. Sheridan
Status:  Pending

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.

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Complaint
  2. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Lead Class Counsel, Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for Fairness Hearing
  3. Memorandum of Law in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Lead Class Counsel, Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for Fairness Hearing
  4. Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Lead Class Counsel, Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for Fairness Hearing
  5. Exhibit 1 - Settlement Agreement
  6. Exhibit 2 - Proposed Plan of Allocation
  7. Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Jeffrey J. Leitzinger, Ph.D. Related to Proposed Allocation Plan and Net Settlement Fund Allocation
  8. Exhibit 4 - Declaration of William W. Wickersham of RG/2 Claims Administration in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Lead Class Counsel, Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for Fairness Hearing
  9. Proposed Order
  10. Order Granting Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Lead Class Counsel, Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class and Proposed Schedule for Fairness Hearing
  11. Notice of Settlement
  12. Claim Form
  13. Notice of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  14. Memorandum in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  15. Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  16. Exhibit A to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  17. Exhibit B to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  18. Exhibit C to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  19. Exhibit D to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  20. Exhibit E to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  21. Exhibit F to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  22. Exhibit G to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  23. Exhibit H to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  24. Exhibit I to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  25. Exhibit J to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  26. Exhibit K to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  27. Exhibit L to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  28. Exhibit M to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  29. Exhibit N to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  30. Exhibit O to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  31. Exhibit P to Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  32. Supplemental Declaration of Gregory T. Arnold on Behalf of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  33. Letter to the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan regarding Supplemental Declaration of Gregory T. Arnold on Behalf of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
  34. Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
  35. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
  36. Declaration of Peter S. Pearlman in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
  37. Proposed Order Granting Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Settlement and Dismissing Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Claims Against Pfizer

In Re: Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation

Case Number:  1:18-cv-4361
Court:  Southern District of New York
Judge:  Alvin K. Hellerstein
Status:  Settled

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. 

Click document titles to open them.


  1. Complaint
  2. Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class, and a Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
  3. DECLARATION OF BRUCE E. GERSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, APPROVAL OF THE FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE TO THE CLASS AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR A FAIRNESS HEARING
  4. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class, and a Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
  5. Order Granting Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG, Approval of the Form and Manner of Notice to the Class, and a Proposed Schedule for a Fairness Hearing
  6. Notice to Class
  7. Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives
  8. Memorandum of Law in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives
  9. Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives
  10. Revised Proposed Order Granting Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Direct Purchaser Class Settlement and Dismissing Direct Purchaser Class Claims
  11. ORDER GRANTING FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL APPROVING DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS CLAIMS
  12. Proof of Claim and Release Form

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
  8. Direct Purchaser Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives
  9. Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives
  10. Index of Exhibits
  11. Minute Order setting Final Fairness Hearing by Phone
  12. Notice of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Settlement
  13. [Proposed] Order Granting Final Judgment And Order of Dismissal Approving Direct Purchaser Class Settlement And Dismissing Direct Purchaser Class Caims Against Impax Laboratories, Inc.
  14. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Settlement
  15. Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein In Support Of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Final Approval Of Proposed Settlement
  16. Order Granting Final Judgment And Order of Dismissal Approving Direct Purchaser Class Settlement And Dismissing Direct Purchaser Class Claims Against Impax Laboratories, Inc.

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:  Settled

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.

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
  4. 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
  5. Order Granting 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. Notice of Settlement
  7. Claim Form
  8. Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards for the Named Plaintiffs
  9. Notice of Class Counsel's Supplemental Submission Regarding Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards for the Class Representatives
  10. Notice of Joinder by Class Representative Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. and Absent Class Member Miami-Luken, Inc.
  11. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement
  12. Memorandum Opinion
  13. Order Granting Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal Approving Direct Purchaser Class Settlement and Dismissing Direct Purchaser Class Claims

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
© Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP 2024  
88 Pine Street, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10005
Attorney Advertising  
Disclaimer   Diversity Policy