Generic Drug Antitrust Litigation Clears Standing Hurdle
The defendants, which consist of 25 pharmaceutical companies, had argued that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring claims based on state laws in jurisdictions where the class representatives did not either purchase or resell the drugs at issue.
February 19, 2019 at 02:49 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Credit: Wm.Burlingham/Fotolia
A federal judge has rejected standing challenges brought by numerous pharmaceutical companies in an attempt to dismiss several antitrust and consumer protection class action claims leveled by entities that either purchased or resold generic drugs at allegedly inflated prices.
The defendants, which consist of 25 pharmaceutical companies, had argued that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring claims based on state laws in jurisdictions where the class representatives did not either purchase or resell the drugs at issue. Specifically, the defendants contended the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to bring the claims.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in her 48-page decision from Feb. 15, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit “has not definitively answered” the question of how courts should balance the interplay between Article III standing and class standing. However, Rufe said the plaintiffs' allegations showed a “substantial and shared interest” in proving the alleged misconduct in the states outlined in the complaints.
“Because the state law claims of the named Group 1 [end-payer and indirect-reseller plaintiffs] largely parallel those of the putative class members, it is both proper and more efficient to consider whether they may pursue their claims on behalf of the unnamed class members in the context of the class certification analysis required under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Rufe said.
The ruling, however, also trimmed numerous state law claims from the complaint, finding that all or parts of the plaintiffs claims were barred under under the antitrust, deceptive trade practices and consumer protection laws in five states.
The consolidated multidistrict litigation In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation stems from a wide-ranging federal probe that in 2016 led two pharmaceutical executives to plead guilty to price-fixing charges.
Rufe's ruling addressed claims brought against a group of defendants made up of 25 pharmaceutical companies incorporated in a handful of states, including Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Delaware and New York.
The group of plaintiffs that Rufe's ruling addressed included 23 end-payers, which included welfare benefit funds, labor unions, private insurers and others, as well as six indirect resellers, all of which were independent pharmacies. The group of plaintiffs brought antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims in nearly all 50 states and several U.S. territories.
The claims are related to the alleged price-fixing of generic drugs between 2012 and the present, which was the subject of a federal investigation into the industry. That probe eventually led Jeffrey Glazer and Jason Malek, both former executives at Heritage Pharmaceuticals, to plead guilty to conspiring to manipulate drug prices.
In broad terms, the cases all stem from claims that, between 2012 and 2015, the average market price for the generic drug at issue significantly increased in ways that corresponded with meetings of trade associations, particularly the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.
Attorneys Dianne Nast of Nast Law and Roberta Liebenberg of Fine, Kaplan and Black are lead attorneys representing the plaintiffs, and Pepper Hamilton attorney Jan Levine is lead counsel for the defense. None of the attorneys returned a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Ozempic Defendants Seek to Shave 'Tacked On' Claims From MDL Complaint
3 minute read
Indiana AG Accuses Big Pharma of Inflating EpiPens Price by 600%, Lawsuit Says
4 minute read
Plaintiff Narrowly Avoids Dismissal Over Lengthy Complaint Filed in Federal Court
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250