August 19, 2020
Pharmaceutical company Actavis told a Massachusetts federal court Wednesday that it had reached a settlement with the direct purchaser class in a lawsuit that accused the company, along with fellow pharma company Shire, of conspiring to delay sales of a generic version of the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication Intuniv.
In a letter, Christopher T. Holding of Goodwin Procter LLP — counsel for Actavis — told the court the company and direct purchasers had reached a settlement “resolving all claims against each other in this litigation” and the class will ask the court for preliminary approval of the deal “in due course.”
However, the letter noted that the direct purchasers’ claims against Shire have not yet been resolved. It also said separate claims against Actavis from a group of indirect purchasers also remain unresolved, as the indirect purchasers’ appeal to the First Circuit against the denial of its class certification is still pending.
. . .
Direct and indirect purchasers of Intuniv claim Actavis got permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to launch its generic version of the ADHD drug in October 2012. However, the generic didn’t come to market until December 2014 because of a deal it made with Shire, leaving buyers without a generic option.
Under the agreement, Shire agreed not to launch an authorized generic during Actavis’ 180-day generic exclusivity period once it launched the generic. In exchange, Actavis agreed to delay its generic launch and give Shire 25% of its profits earned during its exclusivity period — which the purchasers claim is an illegal reverse payment.
. . .
The direct purchasers are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Berger Montague, Radice Law Firm, Nussbaum Law Group PC, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Sperling & Slater PC.