Six More Suits Added to Generic Drug Price-Fixing MDL [UPDATE]
by Erin Shaak
Last Updated on October 20, 2021
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. v. MyIan, Inc. et al
Filed: June 1, 2017 ◆§ 2:17-cv-02479-CMR
Six more lawsuits have been added to a multidistrict litigation that claims various pharmaceutical companies have conspired to fix the price of generic drugs.
Mylan, Inc. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sandoz, Inc. Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. Novartis AG Perrigo Company PLC Perrigo New York, Inc. Akorn, Inc. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. Wockhardt Ltd. Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Pennsylvania
Case Updates
October 20, 2021 – Amended Complaint Filed Following Lawsuit’s Dismissal
A fourth amended complaint has been filed after the claims detailed on this page were dismissed by a federal judge in July 2021.
According to court documents, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on July 26 after finding that the plaintiff, a retail and online pharmacy, lacked standing to sue. Judge Crabtree noted that the plaintiff never purchased EpiPens directly from the defendants and instead bought them from distributor McKesson, who purchased them from the defendants.
As such, the plaintiff was not a direct purchaser and thus could not sue to recover damages under antitrust laws, the order stated.
In dismissing the suit, Judge Crabtree allowed the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint, stating that “an amendment here isn’t futile if plaintiff can plead properly the antitrust claims it has standing to assert.”
A third amended complaint was filed by two plaintiffs on August 16 and a fourth, filed on September 21, added an additional plaintiff to represent the proposed direct purchaser class.
Six more lawsuits have been added to a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Pennsylvania federal court that claims various pharmaceutical companies have conspired to fix the prices of generic drugs. The suits argue that proposed class members paid an unlawfully high price for medicines on which they depend.
One suit has been filed against Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. for allegedly raising the price of generic benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide tablets (benazepril HCTZ). The complaint claims that prices of the drug – which is used to treat high blood pressure and kidney disease – suddenly increased by over 260% in the end of 2013.
Another suit against Mylan Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. alleges that the defendants raised the price of clomipramine hydrochloride, an oral antidepressant.
The third complaint sets forth claims against Mylan, Sandoz, and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. for allegedly conspiring to fix the price of amitriptyline hydrochloride, another antidepressant.
In the fourth suit, Par is a defendant, along with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. In this suit, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to raise the price of baclofen tablets, which are used as a muscle relaxer and anti-spastic agent.
The fifth suit claims that Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; Novartis AG; Perrigo Company PLC; Perrigo New York, Inc.; Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. fixed the price of generic desonide, which is described as “a widely prescribed topical corticosteroid prescription drug used to treat skin conditions in children and to treat sensitive areas and folds of the skin in adults.”
In the sixth suit, Fougera, Novartis, Perrigo, and Taro are joined as defendants alongside Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Wockhardt Ltd., and Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The complaint claims that they fixed the price of various clobetasol propionate products, a corticosteroid used to treat skin conditions and some autoimmune diseases.
According to one of the complaints, “Under the well-accepted economics of generic competition, when there are that many generic versions of a drug available, all of which by definition are equally substitutable, prices should remain at highly competitive, historic levels, and would not increase as they did here, absent anticompetitive conduct.” So far, 18 different generic drugs are now covered in the MDL, the complaint says.
Click on the below links to see the full complaints:
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.