Lipitor Antitrust Litigation -- Southeast Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Pfizer Inc.
Wexler Wallace LLP filed two class actions against Pfizer Inc. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., among others, seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of end-payors of Lipitor and/or its generic bioequivalents for violations of antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs allege that defendants fraudulently procured a patent covering Lipitor, and engaged in sham litigation concerning that patent, in order to keep generic versions of the blockbuster drug off of the market. As a result of these actions, market entry of a generic version of Lipitor was delayed for a number of years. Read more.
Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace is co-lead counsel for the indirect purchasers of Wellbutrin XL in their suit against Defendants Biovail and GlaxoSmithKline for antitrust violations and unfair competition. Plaintiffs allege that Biovail and GlaxoSmithKline filed sham patent infringement lawsuits against makers of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL and filed a sham citizen petition with the FDA in order to keep generic versions of the medicine off the market. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants settled their baseless patent infringement lawsuits by entering into anti-competitive agreements that further delayed the arrival of generic Wellbutrin XL on the market. Read more.
Niaspan Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace LLP is one of the Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs in an antitrust class action case against AbbVie Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (and their related companies) on behalf of End-Payors who purchased the cholesterol drug Niaspan. The plaintiffs allege that AbbVie and Teva (and their predecessors) agreed among themselves to keep a generic version of Niaspan off the market for more than eight years. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants’ conduct caused consumers and drug benefit plans to pay more for Niaspan than they otherwise would have paid. Read more.
Celebrex Antitrust Litigation
In July 2014, Wexler Wallace LLP filed a class action case on behalf of end-payors (i.e., consumers and third-party payors, such as insurers and health benefit welfare funds) alleging that defendants (Pfizer and its subsidiaries) unlawfully suppressed generic competition for the blockbuster drug Celebrex. The United States Court of Appeals ruled in 2008 that the patent was invalid and not patentably distinct from previous Pfizer patents that covered the celecoxib compound – the active ingredient in Celebrex used to treat inflammation-related disorders. Read more.
Suboxone Antitrust Litigation -- Meridian Health Plan of Michigan, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, et al.
On March 26, 2013, Wexler Wallace LLP and its co-counsel filed a case on behalf of a class of end-payors against Reckitt Benckiser for allegedly engaging in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude generic competition for its opiate treatment drug, Suboxone. According to plaintiff’s allegations: Approximately two years before generic competition for the Suboxone tablet was slated to begin, Reckitt began developing a different Suboxone formulation -- an oral film -- with the intention of destroying the market that existed for its original tablet product before generic competition could set in. Read more.
TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace is among the plaintiffs’ counsel that brought suit against manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays ("TFT-LCDs"). TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions, computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, and other devices on behalf of indirect purchasers of these products. A parallel case was brought by direct purchasers. Read more.
Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace LLP, with co-counsel Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, and Trujillo Rodriguez and Richards, LLC, filed a case against Wyeth, Inc. on behalf of Indirect Purchasers of the antidepressant Effexor XR. The plaintiffs allege that Wyeth fraudulently obtained a number of method of use patents for Effexor XR and engaged in sham litigation against 16 potential generic competitors in an effort to protect the Effexor XR monopoly. Read more.
Prograf Antitrust Litigation -- Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 v. Astellas Pharma US, Inc.
Wexler Wallace, together with co-counsel Branstetter Stranch & Jennings PLLC, filed a class action lawsuit against Astellas Pharma US, Inc. seeking damages and equitable relief under federal antitrust law and state antitrust and consumer fraud statutes for consumers and third-party payors (“Indirect Purchasers”) who have been forced to pay higher prices for Prograf, and its generic equivalents, due to Astellas’ anticompetitive conduct. Read more.
Air Cargo Litigation -- In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace is one of a multitude of law firms bringing this massive antitrust case against over twenty aircraft carriers that provide shipping services around the world. The class period for this price-fixing scheme runs from January 1, 2002 to the present. In essence, the action arises from the Defendants' massive global conspiracy to fix or stabilize the prices of air freight shipping services. The complaints allege that the Defendants and their co-conspirators acted in concert pursuant to a single, overarching conspiracy to artificially inflate the prices of shipping air cargo worldwide. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements received. Read more.
Toprol Antitrust Litigation -- In re Metoprolol Succinate End-Payor Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace represents United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 – and is co-chair of the discovery committee – in this antitrust class action brought by third-party payors and consumers against AstraZeneca LP and various related drug companies. The case alleges that, in violation of federal antitrust laws, as well as state unfair competition laws, AstraZeneca improperly manipulated patent filings and filed baseless patent infringement lawsuits in an effort to prevent generic versions of the drug Toprol-XL from entering the market. Among other things, this unlawful conduct has caused end payors for Toprol-XL to pay significantly higher costs than they should have. Read more.
Paxil Antitrust Litigation -- Nichols v. Smithkline Beecham et al.
Wexler Wallace served as Co-Lead Counsel in this case alleging that Defendants illegally maintained a monopoly by taking improper actions to keep generic versions of paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil®) off the market. Paxil is a prescription drug manufactured and sold by GlaxoSmithKline for the treatment of, among other things, depression and anxiety. As alleged in the Complaint, because of Defendants’ actions in delaying generic competition, third party payors and consumers were forced to pay more for this needed medication than they should have. After overcoming the unique hurdles of this case, Wexler Wallace and the other Co-Lead Counsel achieved a settlement of $65 million on behalf of consumersRead more.
Flonase Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in this case, filed on behalf of purchasers of the drug Flonase. Plaintiffs allege that GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") filed a series of citizen petitions with the United States Food and Drug Administration in an improper effort to keep generic versions of Flonase off the market and preserve GSK’s monopoly. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of its conduct, GSK was able to realize higher profits at the expense of consumers and third party payors. Read more.
BP Products Propane Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace was appointed Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Class Counsel in this antitrust class action filed against BP Products North America, Inc. Wexler Wallace represented indirect purchasers of propane who were injured by BP’s unlawful manipulation of the price of propane after it cornered the propane market in February 2004. On February 10, 2010, the Court approved a settlement with BP worth $15,250,000. Read more.
In Re OSB (Oriented Strand Board) Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace pursued this antitrust class action on behalf of direct purchasers of oriented strand board (OSB) from Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Ainsworth, Norbord, Inc., J.M. Huber Corporation, and Tolko Industries, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants conspired to fix OSB prices by reducing the available supply, in violation of antitrust laws. On December 9, 2008, the Honorable Paul S Diamond entered an Order granting final approval of a settlement worth $120 million. Read more.
Skelaxin Antitrust Litigation -- United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Midwest Health Benefits Fund, v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Wexler Wallace LLP and its co-counsel filed an antitrust case on behalf of a class of end purchasers against King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Mutual Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging that King engaged in sham litigation against a number of potential generic manufacturers of the muscle relaxant, brand name Skelaxin. According to the complaint, King and Mutual also conspired to flood the FDA with baseless Citizen Petitions in an effort to protect the Skelaxin monopoly. In addition, the complaint alleges that King and Mutual entered into an anticompetitive settlement in which Mutual received cash payments, among other things, for helping King keep generics out of the market. As a result of these actions, generic Skelaxin competition was delayed for more than 3 years, forcing the proposed class of end purchasers to pay more for Skelaxin and its generics than they would have ahd there been generic competition. Read more.
In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace's client in this antitrust case is the premier supplier of custom label products and one of the largest labelstock purchasers in the country. In this action against manufacturers of labelstock (the base material from which labels are made), the Client's chief financial officer provided crucial testimony relating to the products and pricing behavior at issue in the case. Working closely with the Client, Wexler Wallace produced a massive amount of information during discovery. These efforts by the Client and Wexler Wallace helped lead to class certification and an eventual settlement of the entire case. Read more.
In re Comcast Corp. Set Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace brought this consumer class action on behalf of Comcast customers who purchased premium cable services from Comcast, but were forced to rent a set-top box from Comcast in order to view or access these services. The case alleges violations of the federal and state antitrust laws. It is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As alleged in the complaint, tying the sale of premium cable services to the rental of set-top boxes has enabled Comcast to earn excessive profits from consumers. Read more.
Gleevec Antitrust Litigation -- United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Gleevec is a drug used to treat certain types of leukemia, bone marrow disorders, and skin cancer, or certain tumors of the stomach and digestive system. It costs approximately $9,000 per month. The drug, manufactured by Novartis, should be available as a generic formulation on July 5, 2015. However, as alleged in the complaint filed by Wexler Wallace and others on behalf of plaintiffs, Novartis has unlawfully extracted an additional seven months of exclusivity to guarantee that this very expensive life-saving drug will continue to sell for an extended period without generic competition. Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Novartis from taking any steps to enforce the May 2014 settlement agreement with Sun Pharmaceuticals.Read more.
Opana ER Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace LLP (along with our co-counsel Gustafsen Gluek PLLC and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis) filed two class actions against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Endo Health Solutions Inc. (among others). The complaints seek damages on behalf of end-payors of Opana ER (a painkiller), alleging that the defendants violated antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs allege that defendants paid money to a generic manufacturer to delay the start of generic competition for Opana ER, and then used that delay to introduce a new formulation -- called Opana ER CRF -- as part of an unlawful “product hop” scheme. As a result of defendants’ conduct, market entry of a generic version of Opana ER was delayed for a number of years, forcing the proposed class to pay more for Opana ER than they would have in the absence of defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. Read more.
AndroGel Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace LLP, along with co-counsel Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, represents a class of End-Payor Plaintiffs against the brand name manufacturer of AndroGel 1% and two potential generic entrants. In this case, the End-Payor Plaintiffs seek damages, other monetary relief, and equitable relief for violations of federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and state common law principles of unjust enrichment against Defendants Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Abbvie, Inc., Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and Paddock Laboratories, Inc., now known as Perrigo Company (all collectively “Defendants”). Read more.
Nexium Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace LLP, along with its co-counsel, filed a case on behalf of a class of end-payors (i.e., consumers and third-party payors, such as employee benefit funds and insurers) against AstraZeneca for allegedly entering into non-competition agreements with a number of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in order to delay market entry of generic versions of its blockbuster drug Nexium. Read more.
In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation
Wexler Wallace serves as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of hospitals, pharmacies and other purchasers of hypodermic products manufactured by Becton Dickinson. The Plaintiffs allege that Becton maintained a monopoly in the disposable hypodermic products market by “bundling” products to reduce or eliminate competition in one of the “bundled” product markets. As a result, healthcare providers and others paid more for these Becton products than they should have paid for the anti-competitive monopoly. Read more.
Asacol Antitrust Litigation – United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et. al. v. Allergan, PLC
Asacol is an ulcerative colitis drug taken keep the chronic symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome in remission. In July 2013, a generic version of Asacol should have entered the market, however, because of defendants’ anticompetitive schemes to manipulate drug availability, a generic version does not exist and consumers are paying supracompetitive prices for the drug.Read more.