Namenda Litigation

By providing your information, either on paper, electronically or through a website, you consent to us storing and using your information for case administration purposes only. Our site uses tracking technologies to tailor your experience and understand how you and other visitors use our site. By continuing to navigate this site you consent to use of these tracking technologies. For more information on how we use your personal data, please read our Privacy Policy.

Namenda Litigation
Home
Home
Notice
Notice
Court Documents
Court Documents
Contact Information
Contact Information


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.

 




adobe reader imageYou will need Adobe Reader to view documents on this site. You can learn more about Adobe Reader and download the latest version by clicking here.