Indirect Purchaser Plavix Class Actions Tossed for Lack of Antitrust Standing* On January 31, 2011, the District Court for Southern District of Ohio granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing indirect purchaser class actions that challenged proposed reverse payment agreements as anticompetitive under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2. Plaintiffs alleged those agreements prevented the defendants from entering into an alternative competitive agreement that would have permitted the cheaper generic version of Plavix to enter the market sooner. In re Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig. ("Plavix"), Slip Op., No. 1:06-cv-226, 2011 WL 335034 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2011). Background – Kroger Co. v. Sanofi-Avantis, 701 F.Supp.2d 938 (S.D. Ohio 2010) In an
The US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismisses indirect purchasers’ class action challenging proposed reverse payment agreements as anticompetitive on an allegation of preventing a cheaper generic medicine to enter the market sooner (Plavix)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.