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.

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.

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.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP serves as lead class counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class in In re Mushrooms Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to fix the price of fresh agaricus mushrooms sold in the non-Western United States (i.e. east of the Rocky Mountains) between February 4, 2001 and August 8, 2005 in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Among other things, Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants agreed to pricing policies and written price lists that established the price at which Defendants and their affiliated distributors would sell to direct purchasers in each of the six regions that make up the non-Western United States.  Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants engaged in a Supply Control Program designed to limit the supply of fresh agaricus mushrooms and increase their price.  This Supply Control Program included the acquisition and/or lease of mushroom farms in order to transfer them subject to deed restrictions that prohibited the production of mushrooms on those properties.