In re DDAVP Antitrust Litigation
33 states investigated “pay for delay” allegations relating to DDAVP, a drug used to alleviate bed-wetting. States alleged that Aventis, holder of the patent for the medication, engaged in a scheme to delay the regulatory approval and sale of a generic version of DDAVP, in violation of state and federal antitrust law. States and defendants entered into a settlement under which states received $3.45 million, not as a civil penalty and defendants did not admit guilt.
State of Colorado et al v. Warner Chilcott, 1:05-cv-02182 (D.D.C.2005)
34 states filed suit alleging that Warner Chilcott entered into an illegal agreement with Barr Pharmaceuticals to raise the prices of Ovcon, an oral contraceptive. The lawsuit alleged that after Barr Pharmaceuticals publicly announced that it planned to have a generic version of Ovcon on the market by the end of the year, Warner Chilcott paid Barr Pharmaceuticals $1 million for an agreement designed to prevent Barr’s generic product from coming to market. Under the terms of the alleged agreement, once Barr received FDA approval to market generic Ovcon, Warner Chilcott had 90 days to pay Barr $19 million, after which Barr would refuse to bring the cheaper generic version to the market. The lawsuit alleged that as a result of the agreement, Warner Chilcott paid Barr a total of $20 million to keep it from marketing its generic version of Ovcon. In additon to a payment of $5.5 million, the settlement prohibits Warner Chilcott, for ten years, from entering into any agreement that would have the effect of limiting the research, development, manufacture, or sale of a generic alternative to one of its drugs. Furthermore, Warner Chilcott must provide the states notice of certain agreements it has entered into with generic manufacturers, and must continue to make its records available to the states for inspection to determine whether the company is complying with the terms of the agreement.
New Jersey v. Exxon Corp. No. 1:99CV03183 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 1999); Alaska v. Exxon Corp. No. A99-618-CV (D. Alaska, Nov. 30, 1999); Texas v. Exxon Corp. No. 3-99CV 2709-L (N.D. Texas, Dallas, Dec. 3, 1999); California v. Exxon
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between Exxon Corporation (Exxon) and Mobil Corporation (Mobil), alleging that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition would substantially lessen competition and/or tend to lessen competition in relevant markets in each of the States.
Alaska v. Safeway, Inc., No. 3AN-99-4371 Civil. (Alaska Superior Court April 13, 1999) (1999 WL 1209785)
The State of Alaska investigated the proposed merger of two large supermarkets for potential antitrust violations. The investigation resulted in the execution of a consent decree that required the divestiture of seven stores in relevant markets to a viable competitor.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
