April 5, 2018 - A Massachusetts federal judge gave her initial approval Thursday to Impax Laboratories Inc.’s $20 million mid-trial settlement with a class of consumers and insurers.
The suit claimed that Impax unlawfully delayed the launch of its generic acne medicine for three years in exchange for a $40 million payment from Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., the maker of Solodyn.
Judge Casper said the settlement “was concluded after arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel on behalf of the certified end-payor class.”
The settlement with Impax marks the conclusion of the case. Before trial, the “end-payor” class reached settlements with the other defendants totaling $23 million.
March 19, 2018 - Steve D. Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, an attorney for the consumer class, pressed Impax Vice President of Litigation Margaret Snowden on direct examination about a list of payments tucked into the joint development agreement. The document, presented on a screen inside the courtroom, showed several payments of $2 million, $3 million or $5 million from Medicis to Impax tied to specific benchmarks, such as U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of future joint projects.
A one-time, $40 million payment was also made within five days of the signing of the 2008 accord, the document showed. Shadowen suggested that the money was not needed to close either the license and settlement agreement or the joint development agreement, but was meant to push Impax to delay launching its generic Solodyn by three years.
A proposed class of indirect Aggrenox reached a $54 million settlement agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical and Boehringer Ingelheim over allegations the companies blocked generic alternatives to the stroke-prevention drug from coming to the market.
Their claims are part of a sprawling multidistrict litigation accusing Boehringer and Teva unit Barr Pharmaceuticals of orchestrating a $120 million pay-for-delay deal to keep generic versions of Aggrenox off of the market.
On June 21 2018, Steve Shadowen will address the American Antitrust Institute during its 19th Annual Conference.
The conference's theme this year is “Antitrust at a Crossroads: Plotting the Policy Course for the Next Decade.”
Steve Shadowen and Professor Michael Carrier's law review article, Product Hopping: A New Framework, offers a new legal framework that courts, government enforcers, plaintiffs, and manufacturers can employ to analyze the antitrust implications to branded drug manufacturers' product reformulations. The article was selected for publication in the 2016 Notre Dame Law Review.
Steve Shadowen will provide insight into topics concerning U.S. antitrust enforcement in the pharmaceutical industry, specifically focusing on recent legal developments concerning antitrust challenges to pay-for-delay patent settlements and product hopping.