In re Cardizem Cd Antitrust Litigation
| Decision Date | 11 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-md-1278.,99-md-1278. |
| Citation | 105 F.Supp.2d 618 |
| Parties | In re CARDIZEM CD ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Patrick E. Cafferty, Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP, Ann Abor, MI, for Plaintiffs Charles Zuccarini, Albert Eirich and Jan Gabriel.
Bruce E. Gerstein, Garwin, Bronzaft, New York City, for Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Sixteenth Street Community.
Stephen Lowery, Lowery, Dannenberg, White Plains, NY, for Betnor, Inc.
Elwood S. Simon, Elwood, S. Simon Assoc., Birmingham, MI, for Albert Eirich.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Berman, DeValerio, San Francisco, CA, for Aetna, U.S. Healthcare of California.
Richard B. Drubel, Boies & Schiller, Hanover, NH, for Duane Reade, Inc.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Berman, DeValerio, San Francisco, CA, Elwood S. Simon, Michael G. Wassmann, Lance C. Young, Elwood, S. Simon Assoc., Birmingham, MI, Stephen Lowery, Lowery, Dannenberg, White Plains, NY, for State Law Plaintiffs.
Joe Rebein, Shook, Hardy, Kansas City, MO, for Hoechst AG, Hoechst Akeingesellschaft.
Norman C. Ankers, Honigman, Miller, Detroit, MI, Colin A. Underwood, Louis M. Solomon, Hal S. Shaftel, Michael S. Lazaroff, Solomon, Zauderer, New York City, for Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Louis M. Solomon, Hal S. Shaftel, Michael S. Lazaroff, Solomon, Zauderer, New York City, for Andrx Corp.
Michael D. Hausfeld, Cohen, Milstein, Washington, DC, for Eugenia Wynne Sams.
Andrew J. McGuinness, Dykema Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, Craig L. John, Kimberly A. Bickersteth, Dykema Gossett, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Elwood S. Simon, Elwood, S. Simon Assoc., Birmingham, MI, Stephen Lowery, Richard W. Cohen, Lowery, Dannenberg, White Plains, NY, Angela K. Green, Niewald, Waldeck, Kansas City, MO, for Philip Neal.
Defendant Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. ("HMRI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft ("Hoechst AG"), is the manufacturer of the brand name prescription heart drug Cardizem CD which consists of a once-daily dosage of the chemical compound diltiazem hydrochloride. Cardizem CD is widely prescribed for the treatment of chronic chest pains (angina), high blood pressure (hypertension), and for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. Until June 23, 1999, when Defendant Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Andrx") began to sell Cartia XT, the first generic bioequivalent to Cardizem CD, Defendant HMRI had a monopoly in the $700-million-plus annual United States market for Cardizem CD and its generic bioequivalents.
These cases involve claims that the Defendants violated section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and various state antitrust and unfair competition statutes. Plaintiffs allege the following contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade: Defendant Andrx developed a generic drug which is the bioequivalent to the Hoechst Defendants' prescription drug Cardizem CD. Andrx's generic drug was approved by the FDA for sale and could have entered the U.S. market on or about July 9, 1998. Andrx, however, did not enter the market at that time because it had agreed with its horizontal competitor, HMRI, that it would delay the entry of its generic version of Cardizem CD in exchange for, inter alia, non-refundable payments of $40 million per year from HMRI. Plaintiffs allege that this agreement is embodied in a September 24, 1997 document executed by Defendants HMRI and Andrx (the "HMRI/Andrx Agreement").
The HMRI/Andrx Agreement was executed eight days after the FDA preliminarily approved Defendant Andrx's generic drug as the first AB-rated generic bioequivalent for Cardizem CD. It is alleged that, under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant Andrx agreed not to market its generic drug when it received FDA approval and not to transfer, assign, or relinquish its right to a 180-day exclusivity period that Andrx would enjoy once it finally did begin to market its generic version of Cardizem CD, and Defendant HMRI paid Andrx $89.83 million, beginning on the date the Andrx product received FDA approval. Thus, it is alleged that the HMRI/Andrx Agreement not only protected HMRI from competition from Andrx, but it also protected HMRI from competition from other generic competitors because Andrx agreed not to give up its FDA firstfiler status, thus blocking and delaying other drug manufacturers from introducing generic versions of Cardizem CD in the United States market; i.e., Andrx's delayed entry would postpone the start of its 180-day exclusivity period, and Andrx's agreement not to give up or transfer its right to that 180-day period of exclusivity would preclude other generic competitors from entering the market until that 180-day exclusivity period expired.
After these actions were first filed in August 1998, Defendants' HMRI/Andrx Agreement was widely publicized in the media, was condemned by public officials and health care payors injured by Defendants' acts, and was investigated by the FTC.1 As a result, Plaintiffs' allege that, in June 1999, HMRI and Andrx terminated their Agreement, settled their patent infringement action, and Andrx began to market Cartia XT, its generic version of Cardizem CD.
In addition to the above, it is also alleged that Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern of unlawful anticompetitive conduct to delay the introduction of generic bioequivalent versions of Cardizem CD in the United States. The targets have included, at varying times, co-Defendant Andrx, and Hoechst AG's former joint venture partner, Biovail International Corporation ("Biovail"). The alleged pattern includes the Hoechst Defendants' filing and continued prosecution of a baseless patent infringement action, breached agreements with Biovail, false misrepresentations made to the United States Food & Drug Administration ("FDA"), and manipulation of a Consent Decree with the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") which was designed to prevent the anticompetitive trade practices which are the subject of Plaintiffs' suits.
This matter is now before the Court on numerous motions brought by Defendants requesting dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaints in this multidistrict antitrust litigation pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and (12)(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At issue are: (1) State Law Plaintiffs' Coordinated First Amended Class Action Complaints alleging that Defendants HMRI, Hoechst AG, and Andrx committed a per se violation of various state antitrust laws and were unjustly enriched in violation of various states' common laws; (2) Sherman Act Class Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleging a section 1, Sherman Act violation against Defendants HMRI and Andrx under either a per se or rule of reason analysis of the reasonableness of the Defendants' alleged restraint of competition; (3) Individual Sherman Act Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint brought by the Kroger Co., Albertson's, Inc., the Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., Eckerd Corporation, Walgreen Co. and Hy-Vee, Inc. against Defendants HMRI and Andrx alleging a per se violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act; and (4) Individual Sherman Act Plaintiffs' Complaint brought by Plaintiffs CVS Meridian, Inc. and Rite Aid Corporation against Defendants HMRI and Andrx alleging a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act under either a per se or rule of reason analysis.
For the reasons stated below, this Court DENIES: (1) Defendant Hoechst AG's motion to dismiss the Minnesota action (Aetna U.S. Healthcare, No. 99-73329) for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; (2) Defendant Hoechst AG's motion to dismiss the Tennessee action (Larry S. Sizemore, No. 99-73345) for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; (3) Defendant HMRI's motion to dismiss the Sherman Act Class Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Louisiana Wholesale, No. 99-73259, and Duane Reade, No. 99-73870); (4) Defendant HMRI's motion to dismiss Sherman Act Individual Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Kroger, et al., No. 99-73735); (5) Defendant HMRI's motion to dismiss Sherman Act Individual Plaintiffs' Complaint (CVS Meridian and Rite Aid Corp., No. 99-75036); (6) Defendant HMRI's motion to dismiss State Law Plaintiffs' Coordinated First Amended Complaints (Nos. 99-75070, 99-73422, 99-73412, 99-73871, 99-74262, 99-73667, 98-74043, 99-73239, 99-73845, 99-73713, 99-74377, 99-73190, 99-73345, 99-73981, and 99-73666); (7) Defendant Andrx's motion to dismiss the Coordinated "Indirect Purchaser" Complaints (Nos. 98-74043, 99-75070, 99-73422, 99-73412, 99-73871, 99-74262, 99-73239, 99-73667, 99-73845, 99-73713, 99-74377, 99-73190, 99-73345, 99-73981, and 99-73666); and (8) Defendant Andrx's motion to dismiss the Consolidated "Direct Purchaser" Complaint and the two additional "Direct Purchaser" Complaints (Nos. 99-73870, 99-73259, 99-73735, and 99-75036).
On or about June 25, 1995, Defendant Hoechst AG bought Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. ("Dow"), a major pharmaceutical company. Dow's best-selling prescription drug product was Cardizem CD. After the acquisition, Dow's name was changed to HMRI.2 HMRI is responsible for developing, distributing, advertising and selling Cardizem CD throughout the United States.
HMRI is an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Hoechst AG, a German company, whose stock is publicly traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and until November 26, 1999 was traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Hoechst AG is a 96% owned, direct subsidiary of Aventis, a French corporation, which prior to December 15, 1999, was named Rhone-Poulenc, S.A. Aventis stock is publicly traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, the Paris Bourse, and the New York Stock...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Moundridge, Ks. v. Exxon Mobil Corp
..."constitutes a private restraint of trade subject to liability under the antitrust laws." Id. at 818 (quoting In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F.Supp.2d 618, (E.D.Mich.2000)). In addition, Noerr recognized that "[t]here may be situations in which a publicity campaign, ostensibly dire......
-
Gamble v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.
...plaintiffs failed to allege facts to establish sham exception and avoid Noerr-Pennington bar).15 Citing In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. , 105 F.Supp.2d 618, 635 (E.D. Mich. 2000), plaintiffs contend that conduct in the negotiation of terms of a private settlement agreement is not "petiti......
-
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., No. 91,702.
...place of sale because the consumer is injured when he or she pays the artificially inflated price. See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 105 F.Supp.2d 618, 675 n. 29 (E.D.Mich.2000) (plaintiffs alleged conspiracy to restrain trade, reduce competition and fix prices; court accepted arg......
-
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Abbvie Inc.
...2011) ; Rochester Drug Coop., Inc. v. Braintree Labs., 712 F.Supp.2d 308, 316, 319-21 (D. Del. 2010) ; In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F.Supp.2d 618, 643-44 (E.D. Mich. 2000). After review of the decisions cited by both parties, we conclude that the subjective intent required to ove......
-
Liability for Indirect Purchaser Claims
...2003); In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001); In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Mich. [27] In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672, 695 (S.D. Fla. 2004). [28] E.g., B.W.I. Custom Kitchen v. Ow......
-
Tennessee. Practice Text
...of amenity products to national hotel franchises), aff’d , 128 F.2d 398 (6th Cir. 1997). But see In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F. Supp. 2d 618, 666-68 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (rejecting the “predominantly intrastate” requirement and predicting that the Tennessee Supreme Court “would fin......
-
Table of cases
...138, 139, 260 Carbon Dioxide Indus. Antitrust Litig., In re, 229 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2000), 273 Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., In re, 105 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Mich. 2000), 34, 40, 56, 57, 58, 59, 154 482 Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., In re, 105 F. Sup......
-
ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS
...less than the actual initiation of litigation, do not violate the Sherman Act. . . .”); see also In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F. Supp. 2d 618, 640 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (rejecting Noerr-Pennington antitrust immunity for a drug company that claimed that pre- litigation anticompetitive......