44 AGs File Antitrust Lawsuit Against Pfizer, Teva for Allegedly Fixing Prices of Generic Drugs
Connecticut is leading a 44-state coalition, alleging price-fixing by 20 makers of generic drugs. Their lawsuit seeks payments of billions of dollars to these states.
May 13, 2019 at 12:30 PM
5 minute read
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong is leading a 44-state coalition in an antitrust lawsuit against 20 makers of generic drugs and 15 individuals, claiming the companies conspired to fix prices for more than 100 medications.
The lawsuit—filed May 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut—alleges Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sandoz Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other companies have conspired since at least 2012 to fix the prices on well-known drugs like Niacin ER tablets, Warfarin sodium tablets and Omega-3 acid ethyl esters. The drugs span all types, including tablets, capsules, suspensions, creams, gels, ointments and classes, including statins and antidepressants.
The 524-page lawsuit includes emails, telephone calls and texts allegedly showing competitors working together to fix prices on the drugs.
Plaintiffs include Delaware, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
“For many years, the generic pharmaceutical industry has operated pursuant to an understanding among generic manufacturers not to compete with each other and to instead settle for what these competitors refer to as 'fair share,'” according to the lawsuit. “By 2012, Teva and other co-conspirators decided to take this understanding to the next level. Apparently unsatisfied with the status quo of 'fair share' and the mere avoidance of price erosion, Teva and its co-conspirators embarked on one of the most egregious and damaging price-fixing conspiracies in the history of the United States.”
The lawsuit continues: “Teva had understandings with its highest quality competitors to lead and follow each other's price increases, and did so with great frequency and success, resulting in many billions of dollars of harm to the national economy over a period of several years.”
|'They Started Asking Questions'
Teva, Pfizer, Sandoz and Mylan are the four largest makers of generic drugs listed as defendants.
In a statement, Teva wrote: “The allegations in this new complaint, and in the litigation more generally, are just that—allegations. Teva continues to review the issue internally and has not engaged in any conduct that would lead to civil or criminal liability. Teva delivers high-quality medicines to patients around the world, and is committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations in doing so. We will continue to vigorously defend the company.”
Sandoz also denied wrongdoing.
In a statement, it wrote: “We acknowledge that Sandoz has been named in an industry-wide litigation involving virtually the entire generic pharmaceutical industry. We believe that these claims are without merit and will vigorously contest them. Sandoz takes its obligations under the antitrust laws seriously. We will continue to be committed to providing high-quality, affordable medicines to United States patients, and conducting business with customers and the government with integrity.”
Pfizer, too, denied the allegations against its subsidiary, Greenstone. It wrote: “The company has cooperated with the Connecticut attorney general since it was contacted over a year ago. We do not believe the company or our colleagues participated in unlawful conduct and deny any wrongdoing. Greenstone has been a reliable and trusted supplier of affordable generic medicines for decades and intends to vigorously defend against these claims.”
Mylan Pharmaceuticals did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
Meanwhile, the Connecticut attorney general, Tong, said two attorneys in his office, Mike Cole and Joe Nielsen, began the investigation six years ago. That investigation began after the attorneys read a story in the New York Times in 2013 about the price of the drug digoxin. Their findings led to the filing by Connecticut and the coalition of dozens of other states.
“They started asking questions and investigating back then,” Tong said. ”This is a Connecticut-led case. … It began in our office and is being led by our office.”
Tong called the alleged price-fixing “overt, blatant and undertaken utterly without shame.”
“They just did it like it's a regular part of their day, which is why we have been able to identify so much of the evidence through email, text messages and phone records,” he said. “They openly and continuously colluded with one another on price and market share.”
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal suggested his office saw a similar pattern.
“We all know that prescription drugs can be expensive. Now we know that high drug prices have been driven in part by an illegal conspiracy among generic drug companies to inflate their prices,” Grewal said. “It is particularly troubling that so much of this unlawful conduct took place in New Jersey. I've said before and I'll say again that New Jersey's pharmaceutical industry is the envy of the world. But no New Jersey company will get a free pass when it violates the law and harms our residents, just because it is located here.”
The AGs say they hope the lawsuit will help curb drug prices.
“It answers one of the basic questions we all have: … Why are our drug prices so damn expensive?” Tong said. “This is the reason. It's about price-fixing, collusion and market share.”
As far as the remedy, Tong said: “We want the misconduct to stop and we want the companies to pay back the billions of dollars they stole from the American people, including those in Connecticut.”
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
© 2024 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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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