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.