In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by engaging in unlawful conduct to delay, suppress or block competition by less expensive, generic versions of Namenda IR®. The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into agreements with one or more of Defendants’ prospective generic competitors, whereby Defendants agreed to pay these competitors, in exchange for agreements by these competitors to delay selling their generic versions of Namenda IR®. The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants used this period of delay to engage in a “product hop” by effectively withdrawing Namenda IR from the market before the date Defendants and their generic competitors agreed that the generic competitors could launch generic Namenda IR, in order to force Direct Purchasers to instead purchase Namenda XR® and thereby suppress competition from generic Namenda IR, which would not be automatically substitutable for Namenda XR. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ conduct violated the antitrust laws, and reduced competition from less expensive generic versions of Namenda IR®. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs further 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 versions of Namenda IR®.
All Defendants deny all these allegations, and/or deny that any Class member is entitled to damages or other relief. All Defendants also deny that any of their conduct violated any applicable law or regulation. No trial has been held.
Click document titles to open them.