Judge Approves $22M for End-Payer Attorneys in Provigil Litigation
Goldberg's ruling in the case also gave final approval to the nearly $66 million settlement the parties entered into to settle the end-payers' claims.
April 24, 2020 at 04:49 PM
3 minute read
The federal judge overseeing the Provigil antitrust litigation has awarded attorneys representing end-payers nearly $22 million in fees.
U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday awarded $21.9 million to leading attorneys representing the group of consumers and companies that paid for the drug after Cephalon, the company that makes the sleep disorder drug, allegedly entered into agreements with generic drug makers to delay the entry of competitors on the market. Goldberg's ruling in the case, captioned Vista Health Plan v. Cephalon, also gave final approval to the nearly $66 million settlement the parties entered into to settle the end-payers' claims.
Noting that the fee award represents a third of the total settlement and the litigation was complicated by changing Supreme Court precedent regarding patent and antitrust matters, Goldberg said the award was well within reason.
"Discovery was extensive and far-reaching. The parties proceeded through years of certification, fact, and expert discovery involving approximately five million pages of documents, over 180 depositions, and depositions of numerous experts," he said. "The case was hard-fought on both sides. The parties briefed multiple, highly-contested motions, including motions to dismiss, discovery motions, certification motions, and motions for summary judgment."
Goldberg further noted that counsel spent roughly 41,000 hours on the litigation.
Class counsel for the end-payers are Spector Roseman & Kodroff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Criden & Love.
The $65.8 million settlement is part of a much broader antitrust litigation over Provigil, which included a claim by a separate generic drug company, a $1.2 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and suits brought by direct purchasers of the drug.
Much of the end-payer claims were litigated in conjunction with claims brought by third-party payers. Defendants have agreed to pay nearly $143 million to settle the combined third-party and end-payer claims, with $77 million going to compensate the third-party payers.
The litigation was also significantly complicated when a dispute arose in the fall about whether outside counsel for one of the parties had been given authority to enter the settlement agreement.
United HealthCare Services had sought to back out of the deal, saying it hadn't given its outside counsel the authority to enter into the accord. However, in September, Goldberg rejected those efforts, finding that although the company never gave its outside lawyers express authority to enter into the settlement, facts showed that United had "cloaked" its outside counsel in the "apparent authority" to settle the claims. The decision meant that the accord between the parties was binding.
"United—a major health insurance company with a deep and experienced bench of in-house lawyers—decided to hire outside counsel to conduct all settlement negotiations on its behalf on the Provigil litigation," Goldberg said. "In doing so, United placed complete authority in outside counsel to act on its behalf in these negotiations without providing outside counsel any parameters."
Goldberg cited the complication in determining whether the attorney fees awarded Tuesday were reasonable.
The judge also noted that, as of February, nearly 40,000 class members had filed claims to participate in the settlement, and only 18 class members sought to be excluded.
Pennsylvania attorneys Joseph Meltzer of Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector Roseman did not return a call seeking comment. Kevin Love of Criden & Love in South Miami, Florida, also did not return a call for 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
© 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 All3rd Circuit Revives Class Action Against Bayer Over Benzene-Contaminated Products
4 minute readLife Sciences M&A Set to Boom, Litigation to Remain Steady Under New Trump Admin
5 minute readOzempic Plaintiffs Push for Marketing Discovery After MDL Judge Imposes Limits
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Construction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
- 2Phila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
- 3Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
- 4New Associates Yearbook 2024
- 5Disbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
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