Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

Mylan agreed to pay $96.5 million in Provigil antitrust class action

Published 06/02/2017, 17:53
Updated 06/02/2017, 18:00
© Reuters.  Mylan agreed to pay $96.5 million in Provigil antitrust class action

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) - Mylan NV (O:MYL) has agreed to pay $96.5 million (£77.5 million) to settle claims by drug purchasers that it delayed launching a generic version of Cephalon Inc's narcolepsy drug Provigil in exchange for payment from Cephalon.

The settlement was disclosed in a filing by the drug purchasers in Pennsylvania federal court on Friday, and must still be approved by the court.

The money will go to purchasers that bought brand-name Provigil from Cephalon directly, like wholesalers and distributors.

A Mylan spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

A group of direct purchasers sued Mylan, Cephalon and two other companies - Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (NYSE:TEVA) Ltd and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd - in 2006. They brought their case on behalf of a nationwide class of direct purchasers.

The purchasers said Cephalon reached settlements in patent lawsuits it brought against Teva, Mylan and Ranbaxy in which it paid them to keep generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012. The lawsuit said the settlements, reached in 2005 and 2006, violated federal antitrust law.

Teva bought Cephalon in 2011. In April 2015, it settled with the direct purchasers for $512 million.

In May 2015, it agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle similar claims by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which had separately sued Cephalon over the Provigil settlements.

The agency has long criticized so-called "pay-for-delay" settlements in which brand-name drugmakers pay their generic counterparts to keep drugs off the market.

Ranbaxy is not a party to the settlement announced on Friday.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

The case is King Drug Company of Florence Inc, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Cephalon Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:06-cv-01797.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.