Last updated: January 14, 2025
Introduction
The litigation involving Meijer Distribution, Inc. and other direct purchasers against Allergan, Inc. and its affiliated entities is a significant antitrust case that highlights allegations of anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Here, we will delve into the key aspects of this litigation, including the allegations, the legal proceedings, and the implications of the case.
Background and Plaintiffs
The lawsuit was filed by several direct purchasers, including Meijer Distribution, Inc., Ahold USA, Inc., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., and Value Drug Company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. These plaintiffs are major distributors and retailers of pharmaceutical products[1].
Allegations and Claims
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, which include Warner Chilcott Limited, Allergan plc, and their respective subsidiaries, engaged in an anticompetitive scheme. The primary allegations include:
Product Hopping
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants engaged in "product hopping," a strategy where a monopolist introduces a new product while taking actions to restrict or bar competitors from entering the market. Specifically, the introduction of Asacol HD, a new formulation of the drug Asacol, was alleged to be part of this anticompetitive scheme. The defendants allegedly restricted the market by making it difficult for generic competitors to enter, thereby maintaining their monopoly[1].
Reverse Payment Settlements
The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants entered into reverse payment settlements with generic drug manufacturers, such as Zydus Pharmaceuticals. These settlements involved payments from the brand-name drug manufacturer to the generic manufacturer to delay the entry of generic versions of the drug into the market, further solidifying the defendants' monopoly[1].
Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization
The lawsuit included claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions constituted exclusionary conduct aimed at maintaining their monopoly power in the market for Asacol and its generic equivalents[1].
Legal Proceedings
The defendants moved to dismiss several aspects of the lawsuit, including the reverse payment allegations and the product hopping claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
-
Service and Jurisdiction: The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not properly served Allergan Inc. and had not met the requirements for service under the Hague Convention for Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, which are incorporated outside the United States. However, the court did not dismiss the case on these grounds[1].
-
Anticompetitive Allegations: The court allowed the anticompetitive allegations to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged exclusionary conduct that could restrict the market and bar competitors[1].
Implications and Outcomes
The case highlights the complexities and challenges in antitrust litigation, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
-
Antitrust Enforcement: The lawsuit underscores the importance of antitrust enforcement in preventing monopolistic practices that can harm consumers and restrict competition. Product hopping and reverse payment settlements are strategies that can significantly impact the availability and pricing of essential medications[1].
-
Market Impact: The allegations suggest that the defendants' actions could have led to higher prices for consumers and delayed the entry of generic drugs into the market, which can have broader implications for public health and healthcare costs.
Comparison with Other Litigations
Allergan has been involved in various other litigations, including a securities class action related to the recall of textured breast implants and opioid-related lawsuits.
-
Securities Class Action: In a separate case, Allergan successfully defended against a securities class action related to the recall of its textured breast implants. The Second Circuit affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Allergan, finding no evidence that Allergan made false or misleading statements to investors[2].
-
Opioid Litigation: Allergan has also been involved in opioid-related litigation, including a $45 million settlement with the City of Baltimore to resolve claims related to its opioid products, Kadian and Norco[5].
Key Takeaways
- Anticompetitive Practices: The case against Allergan highlights the importance of monitoring and challenging anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry.
- Legal Complexities: The litigation demonstrates the complexities involved in antitrust cases, including issues of service, jurisdiction, and the sufficiency of allegations.
- Market Impact: The allegations of product hopping and reverse payment settlements underscore the potential for such practices to harm consumers and restrict competition.
- Broader Implications: The case has broader implications for antitrust enforcement and the regulation of pharmaceutical markets.
FAQs
Q: What is the main allegation against Allergan in the Meijer Distribution, Inc. v. Allergan, Inc. case?
A: The main allegations include product hopping and reverse payment settlements aimed at maintaining a monopoly in the market for Asacol and its generic equivalents.
Q: What is product hopping in the context of antitrust law?
A: Product hopping involves a monopolist introducing a new product while taking exclusionary actions to restrict or bar competitors from entering the market.
Q: Which other entities are involved in this litigation besides Meijer Distribution, Inc.?
A: Other direct purchasers involved include Ahold USA, Inc., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., and Value Drug Company.
Q: What was the outcome of the defendants' motion to dismiss in this case?
A: The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the anticompetitive allegations to proceed.
Q: How does this case compare to other litigations involving Allergan?
A: This case is distinct from other litigations such as the securities class action related to breast implants and opioid-related lawsuits, but it highlights Allergan's involvement in various legal challenges.
Sources
- In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., 233 F. Supp. 3d 247 - Casetext
- Allergan Wins Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Securities Class Action - Cleary Gottlieb
- Stipulated Judgment - California Department of Justice
- OpioidSettlementTracker.com
- City of Baltimore Strikes $45 Million Deal with Allergan to Resolve Ongoing Litigation - Mayor of Baltimore
