Antitrust

  • Alert: The U.S. Antitrust Agencies Have Issued Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals

    On October 20, 2016, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (“the agencies”) jointly issued Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals. The eleven page guidance document, along with a two page “red flags” chart, highlight increasing antitrust scrutiny in the market for human capital.
  • FLH Attorneys Presenting the July Edition of Antitrust Developments for the ABA

    Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP is proud to host the ABA Section of Antitrust Law Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Committee’s “Recent Developments.” The program is a series of telephonic programs on health care and pharmaceuticals legislative, regulatory, enforcement, and litigation developments.
    IN: Antitrust
  • Shire Secures Victory Regarding Privileged Documents in Adderall XR Class-Action Antitrust Suit

    On November 12, 2015, a federal magistrate judge issued an Order sustaining Shire’s privilege claims and denying with prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to apply the crime-fraud exception to the documents at issue. Generally, the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made in further of a crime or a fraud.
  • Adderall XR Antitrust Class Has Standing Questioned at Trial

    Miami, Fla. - On October 16, 2015, FLH represented Shire in a class certification hearing before Magistrate Judge Goodman in the Southern District of Florida.  Two consumers sued Shire in 2013 under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act alleging that Shire engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior that delayed entry of generic and authorized generic versions of Adderall XR and caused Florida consumers to pay higher copays than they otherwise would have.
  • Crucial Decision in Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Shire LLC

    On June 9, 2014, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of a putative class action brought by wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products against Shire LLC, and Shire U.S., Inc. (“Shire”), arising out of Shire’s manufacture and sale in the United States of its widely prescribed drug Adderall XR used in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
  • FLH ranked Tier 1 in 2014 U.S. News- Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" Awards

    Frommer Lawrence and Haug LLP was ranked Tier 1 both on the National and Metropolitan categories for its Litigation- Antitrust practice.
  • FLH Wins Key Decision for Adderall XR® Involving Multidistrict Litigation

    On August 6, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion to transfer three antitrust consumer cases, and two potential tag-along actions, filed against Shire U.S. Inc. and Shire LLC involving Adderall XR®. Shire opposed transfer on the grounds that the small number of actions, limited overlap of putative classes, and common counsel mean that centralization is unnecessary. The Panel agreed with Shire finding that informal cooperation among the attorneys and coordination between the courts is preferable to formal centralization.
  • FTC v. Actavis, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 12-416 (AndroGel)

    On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the FTC’s case challenging the Hatch-Waxman patent settlements Solvay (now owned by Abbot Laboratories) entered into with Watson Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceutical, and Paddock Laboratories resolving their disputes involving Solvay’s testosterone-replacement drug, AndroGel. The so-called reverse-payment settlements at issue in AndroGel involved the generics’ agreement to abandon their patent challenges and delay generic entry for nine years. The settlements also involved Solvay making certain payments to the generics in return for backup manufacturing and marketing support.
  • Louisiana Wholesale v. Shire Pharmaceuticals

    On March 5, 2013, U.S.D.J. Victor Marrero issued a decision in Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. v. Shire LLC, 12 Civ. 3711 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2013), dismissing the action for failure to state a monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. In so doing, the Court noted that “This dispute sits at the intersection of patent law, pharmaceutical regulation, and antitrust law, with principles of contract law thrown in for good measure”.