PHARMACEUTICAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

Class Action Capital is the premiere provider of class action settlement claim management and monetization to the global corporate community. Growing from 30 clients in 2012 to over 5,000 to date, our value is understanding the entire class action landscape and bringing to your attention settlements that are in your clients best financial interest.

Please see the below list of settlements that are applicable to your clients.

Pharmaceutical Class Action Settlements

Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation – $64,500,000

This lawsuit alleges defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Limited, Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sandoz Inc. used a multi-faceted anti-competitive scheme to thwart competition and delay the release of generic versions of Solydyn (used for the treatment of acne) causing purchasers to pay more than what was necessary. All persons or entities who indirectly purchased, paid, or reimbursed some of all of the purchase price for Solydyn 45mg, 55mg, 65mg, 80mg, 90mg, 105mg, 115mg, and or 135mg in eligible states/ districts from July 23, 2009 to the present are eligible.

Settlements have been reached with all defendants except for Impax Laboratories Inc. and the trial is scheduled for March 12, 2018. The settlements total $64,500,000 includes both direct and end purchaser classes. The end purchaser class includes both consumer and third-party payor sub-classes. The third-party payor sub-class is composed of persons or entities that purchased, paid for and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for Solodyn 45mg, 55mg, 65mg, 80mg, 90mg, 105mg, 115mg, and/or 135mg tablets and/or generic versions of one or more of these dosages, for consumption by members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale.

The eligible states/ districts include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The following persons or entities are excluded from the End-Payor Class: (a) Defendants and their counsel, officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates; (b) All federal or state governmental entities, excluding cities, towns, or municipalities with self-funded prescription drug plans; (c) All persons or entities that purchased Solodyn or its generic equivalents for purposes of resale or directly from the Defendants or their affiliates; (d) Fully insured health plans (plans that purchased insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of the plan’s reimbursement obligations to its members); (e) Pharmacy Benefits Managers; (f) Flat co-payers (consumers who paid the same co-payment amount for brand and generic drugs); and (g) The judges in this case and any members of their immediate families.​

The claims filing deadline is July 31, 2018.

​Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation – $104,750,000

This lawsuit alleges that Endo Pharmaceuticals paid generic manufacturers to delay the release of generic Lidoderm patches, thus artificially increasing the price of Lidoderm. All persons or entities who for the consumption of their insureds, plan participants or beneficiaries paid and/or provided reimbursements for some or all of the purchase price of branded Lidoderm between August 23, 2012 – September 14, 2013 or AB-rated generic Lidoderm between September 15, 2013 – August 1, 2014 are eligible.

The defendants include Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Pharma and Watson Pharmaceuticals. The eligible states include: Arizona, California, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ​

Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation – $54,000,000

This lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired to delay the release of generic brands of Aggrenox resulting in purchasers paying more than what was necessary. The lawsuit includes both direct and indirect classes. The indirect class, includes third-party payors and all persons or entities in an eligible state who indirectly purchased, paid for and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for branded or generic Aggrenox (used for the treatment of hypertension, high blood pressure and heart attacks) for consumption by themselves, their families or their members, employees, insureds, participants or beneficiaries, other than for resale from November 1, 2009 – December 22, 2017 are eligible.

The defendants include Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co., KG and its affiliates and subsidiaries, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries. All defendants have settled.

The eligible states/ districts include: Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Excluded from the settlement are re-sellers of Aggrenox, fully-insured health plans, Pharmacy Benefits Managers, Humana Inc and their subsidiaries, Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, Flat co-payers, co-payers who did not purchase branded Aggrenox before July 1, 2015 and have a flat generic co-pay, Medicaid purchasers, purchasers of Aggrenox in Rhode Island prior to July 15, 201, purchasers of Aggrenox in Oregon before 2010, federal and state government entities, except cities, towns or municipalities with self-funded prescription plans.

Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield (The Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan) – $29,990,000

This lawsuit alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan had clauses in its contracts with some Michigan General Acute Care Hospitals that violated federal and state antitrust laws and inflated prices for medical care at certain Michigan hospitals by as much as 40%. All purchasers of healthcare services at Michigan General Acute Care Hospital between January 1, 2006 through June 23, 2014 are eligible.

Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (Settlement Fund To Be Determined)

The plaintiffs seek to certify an end user class consisting of all persons or entities who indirectly purchased, paid for and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for brand or generic Opana ER (used for pain management) 5mg, 10mg, 20mg, 30mg and/or 40mg other than for resale in eligible states/ districts between June 14, 2010 through the present.

The eligible states/ districts include: Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In recent weeks, the case has reached a major settlement in advance of trial. Terms of the settlement agreement, including the settlement fund amount have not been publicly released at this time. This page will be updated once more information becomes available.

TO SIGN UP FOR CLASS ACTION CAPITAL’S CLAIM MANAGEMENT PLEASE COMPLETE THE BELOW AGREEMENT