TCL is and has been involved in over a dozen antitrust class actions in which we represent purchasers of pharmaceutical products. In these actions, we allege that brand name drug companies engage in anticompetitive conduct in order to delay or prevent competition from manufacturers of less expensive generic versions of brand name drugs. Such conduct inflates the cost of prescription drugs for direct purchasers and consumers. We play an active role in helping aggrieved purchasers recover hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges they have incurred by paying inflated prices as a result of such illegal conduct.
-
In re: Copaxone Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.)
As interim co-lead counsel, we represent a proposed class of end payors who allege that Teva—one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers in the world—engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to shield its multiple-sclerosis drug, Copaxone, from generic competition (e.g., by pressuring PBMs to exclude generic Copaxone from their formularies). The case is in the discovery phase of litigation.
-
Government Employees Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (D. Md.)
We represent a class of third-party payors who allege that the defendant abused the regulatory system by refusing to provide generic-drug manufacturers with samples of its blockbuster heart medication, Tracleer. This prevented the manufacturers from developing generic Tracleer, which allowed the defendant to continue selling the drug at inflated prices.
-
In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)
As class counsel, we played an active role in this case, which alleged that the defendants conspired to keep generic diabetes medicine off of the market. The case resulted in a $453 million settlement—one of the largest in the history of generic-delay cases.
-
In re: Suboxone Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)
We represent a class of direct purchasers of Suboxone alleging that the defendant —the manufacturer of a drug meant to fight heroin addiction—delayed its cheaper, generic competitors from entering the market. The defendant ultimately settled with the class for more than $380 million.
-
In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)
TCL played a key role on the Executive Committee; guiding this case on behalf of direct purchasers of Lidoderm, who alleged that the defendants conspired to delay the launch of less expensive versions of lidocaine patches. Along with our co-counsel, we recovered a $166 million settlement on the eve of trial.
-
In re Effexor XR Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.)
As a member of the Executive Committee, we represent direct purchasers of Effexor XR who were prevented from purchasing less expensive, generic versions of Effexor XR because of Defendants’ alleged scheme to monopolize the market. This scheme included committing fraud to secure a patent and paying a generic competitor to delay its market entry.
-
In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass.)
As class counsel, we were actively involved in securing a $72.5 million settlement for a class of direct purchasers. The direct purchasers alleged that a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer paid its generic competition to stay off of the market, which in turn inflated the price of certain skin medications.
-
In re Zetia Antitrust Litigation (E.D.Va.)
We represented direct purchasers of the drug Zetia, who alleged that the defendants conspired to delay the launch of cheaper generic versions of ezetimibe. As members of the Executive Committee and active members of the trial team, we helped achieve a favorable settlement for our clients at the beginning of the trial.
-
In re Celebrex Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Va.)
We represented direct purchasers in a class action alleging that Pfizer delayed generic competition for its successful pain reliever, Celebrex, by making misrepresentations and omitting material facts before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On the eve of trial, the case settled for $94 million.