Miller Law LLC and Safirstein Law LLC Announce Proposed Settlements in the Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--If You Purchased, Paid for, or Provided Reimbursement for the Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Namenda XR or Namenda IR and its AB-rated generic equivalents, between April 14, 2010 through December 31, 2017 (the estimated date that the anticompetitive effects of Generic Defendants’ unlawful conduct ceased), You Could Get Money from a Class Action Settlement.
For more detailed information, visit: www.InReNamendaIndirectAntitrustLitigation.com
Para conseguir una notificación en español, llame a 1-877-266-8807 o visite el sitio web: www.InReNamendaIndirectAntitrustLitigation.com
Your rights may be affected by proposed settlements in a class action lawsuit, In re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) involving Namenda XR, Namenda IR, and its AB-rated 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”) and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cobalt Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, “Teva”);; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (jointly, “Dr. Reddy’s”)1; Wockhardt Limited and Wockhardt USA LLC (jointly, “Wockhardt”); Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC (collectively, “Amneal/Sun/Upsher-Smith” and with Teva, Dr. Reddy’s, and Wockhardt, collectively, (collectively, “Generic Defendants”) harmed competition and violated state antitrust, consumer protection and deceptive trade practices laws, and engaged in inequitable conduct in the United States. The lawsuit claims that the defendants engaged in a monopolization scheme that kept generic versions of Namenda off the market and made Namenda prices higher than they otherwise would have been. The defendants deny these claims. No one is claiming that Namenda is unsafe.
Am I included?
This is a class action lawsuit. The proposed settlement with the Generic Defendants includes both consumers and third-party payors (entities such as employers or insurers with self-funded prescription drug plans). The proposed settlement with the Brand Defendants only includes third-party payors. The classes generally include:
1. Brand Defendants 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 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.
2. Generic Defendants Class: All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for branded Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets, or Namenda XR capsules, for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale, at any time during the period from April 14, 2010 through the date that the anticompetitive effects of the Generic Defendants conduct ceases. The settlement with Teva includes the AB-rated generic versions of Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets.
Certain parties are excluded from the classes. The complete description of the classes is set forth in the Long-Form Notice and Settlement Agreements available at www.InReNamendaIndirectAntitrustLitigation.com.
What do the settlements provide?
The Brand Defendants will pay a total of $54.4 million and the Generic Defendants will pay a total of $2,038,000 into a settlement fund to settle all claims in the lawsuit brought on behalf of the classes.
Class counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of the settlement fund, plus interest, litigation expenses (up to $5,900,000), and incentive awards to the named Plaintiff up to $100,000. After these deductions, the remainder of the settlement fund will be distributed pro rata to class members who file valid Claim Forms. The amount of money each class member receives will depend on how much branded Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets, and its AB-rated generic equivalents, and/or branded Namenda XR capsules were purchased or paid for from April 14, 2010 through December 31, 2017, for members of the Generic Defendants Class, and June 1, 2012 through December 31, 2017, for members of the Brand Defendants Class, compared to the amounts purchased or paid for by all other respective class members who file valid and timely Claim Forms, and the class(es) to which the claimant belongs.
How do I get a payment?
You must submit a Claim Form online, or mail it postmarked, by February 3, 2023 to be eligible for a payment. The Claim Form, and instructions on how to submit it, are available at www.InReNamendaIndirectAntitrustLitigation.com, or by calling 1-877-266-8807.
What are my other options?
If you are a member of one or both classes, you may comment on or object to the proposed settlements. Consumer class members of the Generic Defendants Class may also ask to be excluded from the Generic Defendants Class (meaning you cannot receive money from the settlement, but you can sue Generic Defendants separately at your own expense). Third-party payor class members of either the Generic Defendants Class or the Brand Defendants Class were previously provided an opportunity to request exclusion from the class in this lawsuit. Therefore, TPPs cannot request exclusion.
You must object to the settlements by February 3, 2023, or request to be excluded from the class by February 3, 2023. Details of how to comment, object, or ask to be excluded can be found at www.InReNamendaIndirectAntitrustLitigation.com.
The Court will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on March 13, 2023 to consider whether the settlements and all of their terms are fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the classes. These deadlines and the date and time of the hearing may be amended by Court Order. Check the website below for updates.
For more information: 1-877-266-8807 or visit www.InReNamendaIndirectAntitrustLitigation.com
1 The Dr. Reddy’s Settlement Agreement provides in part “The Settling Parties agree that if the Court certifies a class based on the Plaintiff’s pending motion for class certification (or for any purpose other than for settlement), then the class definition applicable to the Settling Defendants will be modified to include all people and entities encompassed within either the above definition or in the definition certified by the Court.” By earlier notice, the Third-Party Payors (“Brand Defendants”) class was certified.