The information contained on this
website is only a summary. You may
download a copy of the Notice of Certified Litigation Class Action by clicking here. Since this website is just a summary, you
should review the Notice for additional details.
If you purchased branded Namenda IR,
and/or branded Namenda XR,
or generic Namenda IR, indirectly, a
class action lawsuit may affect your rights.
A
class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (“the Court”) involving Namenda XR, Namenda IR,
and its generic equivalents. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants Actavis, plc
and its wholly owned subsidiary Forest Laboratories, LLC, (jointly, “Actavis”);
and Merz GmbH & Co KgaA, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, and Merz Pharma GmbH
& Co. KgaA (collectively “Merz”) (collectively “Brand Defendants”) harmed
competition and violated state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws in the United States. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (jointly, “Teva”); Cobalt
Laboratories, Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and/or Dr. Reddy’s
Laboratories, Inc. (jointly, “Dr. Reddy’s”); Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.;
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Sun India Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.; and Wockhardt
Limited and Wockhardt USA LLC (jointly, “Wockhardt”)(collectively “Settling
Generic Manufacturer Defendants”) have settled with the Plaintiff, Sergeants
Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund. The Court preliminarily
approved settlements with those Settling Generic Manufacturers but your rights
in connection with them will be provided in a later notice. Plaintiff claims
that Defendants harmed competition and violated state antitrust and consumer
protection and deceptive trade practices laws and engaged in inequitable
conduct in certain U.S. states by unlawfully delaying and impeding the market
entry of less-expensive generic versions of Namenda IR. Specifically,
the Indirect Purchaser Class Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants entered into
unlawful, non-competition agreements, or horizontal market allocation
agreements, with prospective generic competitors, whereby Defendants agreed to
pay the generic competitors, in exchange for the generic competitors agreeing
to delay selling its generic version of Namenda IR. The lawsuit also includes
allegations directed toward a so-called “hard switch product hop” to compel
purchasers to switch to Defendants’ extended release version of Namenda
(Namenda XR), before less expensive generic versions of Namenda IR became
available; however, the Court did not certify the “hard switch” claim for class
action treatment, so the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff is pursuing that claim
only for itself, not on behalf of any other indirect purchaser of Namenda. Indirect Purchaser Class Plaintiff alleges
that it and other members
of the Class were injured
by being overcharged because of Defendants’ conduct and overpaid
on their purchases of Namenda IR, Namenda XR, and generic
Namenda IR in the states (defined below). Defendants deny
any wrongdoing. No one is claiming that Namenda is unsafe or ineffective.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS?
All Third-Party Payors
who indirectly purchased, and/or paid, and/or
provided reimbursement for, some or
all of the purchase price for
branded Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets,
their AB-rated generic
equivalents, and/or branded Namenda XR capsules, other than for resale
in Alabama, Arizona,
California, D.C., Florida,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Rhode Island (for purchases after July 15, 2013), South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin, for consumption by themselves, or their members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, from June
1, 2012 through December 31, 2017.
Excluded from the proposed Class
are: (a) Defendants and Defendants’ parents, subsidiaries and affiliates; (b) fully-insured health
care plans (i.e., health plans that purchased insurance from another
third-party payor covering
100% of the insureds’
prescription drug benefits
on behalf of the Plan’s members and beneficiaries); (c) all federal or state governmental entities, excluding cities, towns, or municipalities
with self-funded prescription drug plans; (d) Pharmacy Benefit
Managers (“PBMs”); and (e) all judges presiding in this case, their chambers
staff, and any members of their immediate families, and all counsel of record.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THE
SETTLEMENTS
|
EXCLUDE
YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS
|
If you wish to exclude yourself from the
TPP Class, you must submit a written request by May 28, 2021. If you
exclude yourself, you will not be bound by future decisions of the Court,
including any determinations at trial. You will not be able to participate in any future class settlements or judgments for this matter which may include an award of monetary damages.
|
do nothing
|
You are
automatically part of the TPP Class if you fit the TPP Class description. By
remaining in the TPP Class, you will receive the benefit of any
determinations against the Defendants on the issues to be tried in this
Action, and you will be bound by any determinations for the Defendants on the
issues to be tried in this Action. In other words, you will be bound by
rulings that the Defendants violated the state antitrust and consumer
protection laws, or that the Defendants did not violate the state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The TPP Class will not receive any
monetary recovery as a result of the class certification order. If the matter
is decided in favor of the TPP Class at trial, or if there is a resolution of
the matter, then a class member may only recover monetary damages from the
Defendants if it does not request exclusion from the Class.
Give up rights
to be part of any other lawsuit that asserts claims related to the
allegations or claims against the Defendants in this case.
|