On May 28, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had reached a $1.2 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals,[1] which acquired Cephalon in 2012, over reverse payment for its narcolepsy drug, Provigil. The Cephalon settlement also has non-monetary terms that bar Cephalon from entering agreements that include (i) payments to a generic filer and (ii) an agreement by a generic filer not to develop or market a drug within 30 days of a patent settlement that impedes generic entry.[2] The FTC has lauded the outcome of Cephalon—its first settlement post-Actavis[3]—with FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez hailing it as a “landmark settlement” and “an important step in the FTC’s ongoing effort to protect consumers from anticompetitive pay for delay settlements.”[4]
Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Continues March “to Set a Standard for the Industry” with Cephalon Settlement
Federal Trade Commission Continues March “to Set a Standard for the Industry” with Cephalon Settlement
On May 28, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had reached a $1.2 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals,[1] which acquired Cephalon in 2012, over reverse payment for its narcolepsy drug, Provigil. The Cephalon settlement also has non-monetary terms that bar Cephalon from entering agreements that include (i) payments to a generic filer and (ii) an agreement by a generic filer not to develop or market a drug within 30 days of a patent settlement that impedes generic entry.[2] The FTC has lauded the outcome of Cephalon—its first settlement post-Actavis[3]—with FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez hailing it as a “landmark settlement” and “an important step in the FTC’s ongoing effort to protect consumers from anticompetitive pay for delay settlements.”[4]
Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Continues March “to Set a Standard for the Industry” with Cephalon Settlement
California Supreme Court Delineates a Structured Rule of Reason Analysis for Evaluating Reverse Payment or Pay-for-Delay Settlements
On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616 (May 7, 2015) (Cipro). Cipro holds that reverse payment settlements can be challenged under California’s Cartwright Act, thereby reviving class actions filed by California indirect purchasers. The California Supreme Court, however, went further, by delineating a structured rule of reason analysis to be used in evaluating the legality of reverse payment settlements, something the U.S. Supreme Court had left up to future lower courts to develop.[1]
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Delineates a Structured Rule of Reason Analysis for Evaluating Reverse Payment or Pay-for-Delay Settlements
What Does the First-Ever Extradition on an Antitrust Charge Mean for the Auto Parts Investigation?
On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division announced a milestone victory, having successfully litigated its first extradition for an alleged antitrust violation.[1] Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national and former Parker ITS Srl executive, was extradited from Germany for his involvement with the marine hose cartel, almost seven years after the Division began its investigation with raids in Houston, Texas on May 2, 2007. Pisciotti was arrested in Germany on June 17, 2013, and surrendered to the U.S. authorities under the terms of the U.S.-Germany extradition treaty, which provides for extradition where the alleged offense is punishable under both German and U.S. federal law.
Continue Reading What Does the First-Ever Extradition on an Antitrust Charge Mean for the Auto Parts Investigation?
JFTC Releases Survey on Corporate Compliance Efforts and Recommends Best Practices
On November 28, 2012, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) published the findings of its 2012 survey of corporate compliance practices based on (i) responses from approximately 879 companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange; (ii) interviews of six attorneys specializing in corporate or antitrust law; and (iii) interviews of 82 companies with informative examples of success or failure. The JFTC’s report, titled “Survey on Corporate Compliance Efforts with the Antimonopoly Act (Summary),” coincides with an unprecedented era of administrative and criminal enforcement against Japanese companies and executives by the JFTC and U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Although the results pertained to compliance with Japan’s Antimonopoly Act (“AMA”), the principles can be applied to ensure compliance with virtually any competition law regime.
Continue Reading JFTC Releases Survey on Corporate Compliance Efforts and Recommends Best Practices