Skip to main content

Displaying 121 - 140 of 302

Mylan, N.V., In the Matter of

Mylan Inc. agreed to divest the rights and assets related to two generic pharmaceutical products in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $7.2 billion acquisition of Swedish drug maker Meda would be anticompetitive. The FTC order preserves competition in the markets for 250 mg generic carisoprodol tablets, which treat muscle spasms and stiffness, and for 400 mg and 600 mg generic felbamate tablets, which treat refractory epilepsy. Under the proposed order, the U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical company Alvogen Pharma US, Inc. will acquire all of Mylan’s rights and assets related to 400 mg and 600 mg felbamate tablets. The proposed order also requires Mylan to provide transitional services and take all actions that are necessary for Alvogen to obtain FDA approval to manufacture and market 400 mg and 600 mg generic felbamate tablets. According to the FTC’s complaint, Meda and one other company currently market 250 mg generic carisoprodol tablets, and Mylan, which owns the U.S. marketing rights to a recently approved carisoprodol product, is the next likely entrant. Without a remedy, the acquisition would eliminate Mylan’s entry as a third independent competitor, delaying beneficial competition and future price decreases. Under the proposed order, Mylan must relinquish its U.S. marketing rights for the drug. With the settlement, Indicus Pharma LLC, which owns the product, manufactures it, and markets it internationally, will compete independently in the U.S. market.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
161 0102
Docket Number
C-4590

Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, In the Matter of

Drug manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC agreed to sell the rights and assets for two generic drugs, and relinquish its U.S. marketing rights to a third generic drug, in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $2 billion acquisition of Roxane would likely be anticompetitive. The merger would have combined two of five firms marketing prednisone tablets and two of four firms marketing lithium carbonate capsules. In the market for flecainide tablets, Roxane is currently one of only two firms with significant market share. Absent the merger, Hikma was expected to market flecainide tablets in the U.S. following FDA approval, which its partner, Unimark, is currently seeking. The order preserves competition by requiring the companies to divest to Pennsylvania-based Renaissance Pharma, Inc., three strengths of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant prednisone tablets and all strengths of lithium carbonate capsules, used to treat bipolar disorder. The order also requires Hikma to relinquish to its drug development partner, India-based Unimark Remedies Ltd., its equity interest as well as the rights to market flecainide acetate tablets in the United States, a drug used to prevent and treat abnormally fast heart rhythms.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0198

Lupin Ltd., et al., In the Matter of

Generic drug manufacturers Lupin Ltd. and Gavis Pharmaceuticals LLC agreed to sell the rights and assets for two generic drugs, in order to settle FTC charges that Lupin’s proposed $850 million acquisition of Gavis would likely be anticompetitive.The merger would have combined two of only four companies that currently market generic doxycycline monohydrate capsules in two dosage strengths, used to treat bacterial infections, likely resulting in higher prices. The merger also would have eliminated one of only a few companies likely to enter the market for  generic mesalamine extended release capsules, used to treat ulcerative colitis, in the near future, thereby delaying beneficial competition and the prospect of price decreases. Under the terms of the order, Lupin is required to transfer to G&W Laboratories all of Gavis’s rights and assets related to generic doxycycline monohydrate capsules no later than ten days after the acquisition is consummated. The order also requires that Gavis divest its rights and assets related to generic mesalamine capsules to G&W before the acquisition takes place.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0202
Docket Number
C-4566

Pfizer Inc., a corporation, and Wyeth, a corporation, In the Matter of

The Commission challenged Pfizer Inc.’s proposed $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth and required significant divestitures to preserve competition in multiple U.S. markets for animal pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The proposed consent order remedies the anticompetitive effects the Commission believes are likely to result from the transaction in numerous markets for animal vaccines and animal pharmaceutical products. After a thorough investigation, the Commission concluded that the transaction does not raise anticompetitive concerns in any human health product markets.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
091 0053
Docket Number
C-4267

Endo Pharmaceuticals / Impax Labs

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Opana ER and Lidoderm with an agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – as a form of reverse payment. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extendedrelease opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.  Teikoko Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. agreed to a stipulated order resolving FTC charges.

In November 2016, the FTC voluntarily dismissed the complaint in this action.  On January 23, 2017, the FTC refiled charges related to the Lidoderm agreements in federal court in California (Federal Trade Commission vs. Allergan plc; Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al) and refiled charges related to the Opana ER agreement in a Part 3 administrative proceeding.  (In re Impax Laboratories, Inc.)

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0004

Bedford Laboratories/Hikma Pharmaceuticals, In the Matter of

Generic drug marketer Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC agreed to divest its rights and interests in five generic injectable pharmaceuticals to settle charges that its $5 million acquisition of the rights to various drug products and related assets from Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, without a remedy, Hikma’s purchase of certain generic injectables would likely harm future competition in the U.S. markets for (1) Acyclovir sodium injection: an antiviral drug used to treat chicken pox, herpes, and other related infections, (2) Diltiazem hydrochloride injection: a calcium channel  blocker and antihypertensive used to treat hypertension, angina, and arrhythmias, (3) Famotidine injection: a treatment for ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease, (4) Prochlorperazine edisylate injection: an antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia and nausea, and (5) Valproate sodium injection: a treatment for epilepsy, seizures, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and migraine headaches. Hikma is required to divest the five generic injectable drug assets to Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California-based specialty pharmaceutical company that sells generic injectable and inhalation products.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0044

In re Wellbutrin Antitrust Litigation

Date
Citation Number
15-3559, 15-3591, 15-3681, 15-3682
Federal Court
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission arguing that the district court committed multiple legal errors that should be corrected on appeal. The district court erroneously concluded that a reverse...

Mylan N. V., In the Matter of (Perrigo Company), In the Matter of

Mylan N.V. agreed to sell the rights and assets related to seven generic drugs in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed acquisition of Perrigo Company plc would be substantially reduce competition in the markets for those drugs if the merger proceeded as originally proposed. 

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0129
C-4557

Endo International plc, In the Matter of

Pharmaceutical companies Endo International plc and Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. agreed to divest all of Endo’s rights and assets to generic glycopyrrolate tablets and generic methimazole tablets in order to settle FTC charges that Endo’s proposed $8 billion acquisition of Par would likely be anticompetitive. New Jersey-based generic drug marketer Rising Pharmaceuticals will acquire the divested assets. Under the settlement, Endo must supply Rising with the divested products for two years, while it transfers the manufacturing technology to Rising’s chosen third-party manufacturer. Endo also must provide technical assistance, training, and other transitional services to help Rising establish manufacturing capabilities. Without the divestitures required by the proposed order, the FTC alleges that the acquisition would combine the two most significant suppliers in the market for generic glycopyrrolate tablets, which are used with other drugs to treat certain types of ulcers, and two of only four active suppliers in the market for generic methimazole tablets, which are used to treat the body’s production of excess thyroid hormone.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0137
Docket Number
C-4539

Concordia Healthcare / Par Pharmaceutical, In the Matter of

Pharmaceutical companies Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. settled FTC charges that they entered into an unlawful agreement not to compete in the sale of generic versions of Kapvay, a prescription drug used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to enforce the anticompetitive provisions of their agreement. Until May 15, 2015, Concordia and Par were the only two firms permitted by the FDA to market generic Kapvay. Rather than competing against one another, Concordia agreed not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay in exchange for a share of Par’s revenues. Under the terms of the settlements, Concordia is prohibited from enforcing the anticompetitive provisions of its agreement with Par, including the profit-sharing provisions, and Par is prohibited from enforcing provisions that bar Concordia from agreeing not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay. Concordia began selling generic Kapvay after learning of the FTC’s investigation.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0030

Pfizer Inc./Hospira, Inc., In the Matter of

Pfizer Inc. agreed to sell the rights and assets related to four pharmaceutical products in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $16 billion acquisition of Hospira, Inc. would likely be anticompetitive. Pfizer is one of the world’s largest drug companies and principally competes with Hospira in markets for certain sterile injectable pharmaceutical products. The order requires Pfizer to supply Alvogen with the clindamycin phosphate injection product for three years while Pfizer transfers the manufacturing technology to Alvogen or its designee. Pfizer also is required to provide transitional services to Alvogen to assist with establishing manufacturing capabilities and securing FDA approvals to market all of the divested products.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
151 0074
Docket Number
C-4537