Displaying 861 - 880 of 4794
Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc has agreed to pay $50 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the antitrust laws through a deceptive scheme to thwart lower-priced generic competition to its branded drug Suboxone. According to the complaint, before the generic versions of Suboxone tablets became available, Reckitt and its former subsidiary Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, now known as Indivior, Inc., developed a dissolvable oral film version of Suboxone and worked to shift prescriptions to this patent-protected film. Worried that doctors and patients would not want to switch to Suboxone Film, Reckitt allegedly employed a “product hopping” scheme where the company misrepresented that the film version of Suboxone was safer than Suboxone tablets because children are less likely to be accidentally exposed to the film product. Indivior has agreed to pay an additional $10 million to settle FTC charges. On May 10, 2021, the FTC announced that it sent nearly $60 million in payments to consumers who were victims of the scheme.
2105010 Informal Interpretation
2105004 Informal Interpretation
FTC Acting Chairwoman Slaughter Announces New Appointments to Agency Leadership Positions
Casey’s General Stores, Inc.; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment
FTC Requires Divestitures as Condition of Casey’s General Stores, Inc.’s Acquisition of Buck’s Intermediate Holdings, LLC
FTC Asks Congress to Pass Legislation Reviving the Agency’s Authority to Return Money to Consumers Harmed by Law Violations and Keep Illegal Conduct from Reoccurring
2104007 Informal Interpretation
2104004 Informal Interpretation
2104003 Informal Interpretation
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Upholds FTC’s Opinion against Generic Pharmaceutical Company Impax Laboratories, LLC
Impax Laboratories, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC's administrative complaint against Impax charges that in 2010, Impax and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. illegally agreed that Impax would not compete by marketing a generic version of Endo’s Opana ER until January 2013. In exchange, Endo paid Impax more than $112 million.
Endo agreed to settle these charges in a stipulated order entered in federal court. See FTC v. Allergan plc, and Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al.
The Commission’s 2019 opinion held that the FTC staff had proven that the agreement between Impax and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission’s opinion reversed Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell’s initial decision.
In April 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Commission’s opinion.
2104001 Informal Interpretation
2104006 Informal Interpretation
2104005 Informal Interpretation
Displaying 861 - 880 of 4794