Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Conn.: Generic drug manufacturer Greenstone excluded from alleged 'overarching conspiracy', (Jun 3, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

The court mostly denied summary judgment over conspiracies regarding individual generic drugs in "Dermatology Complaint" case.

The federal district court in Hartford, Connecticut has granted summary judgment to generic drug manufacturer Greenstone LLC, excluding it from the overarching price-fixing and market allocation conspiracy previously found to have been plausibly pleaded. As with other defendants in the so-called "Dermatology Complaint" case, the judge evaluated the evidence on conspiracies regarding the individual drugs to which the case pertained, granting summary judgement regarding two individual drug conspiracies but denying it regarding the remainder. The court also denied summary judgment regarding the disgorgement issue as premature (The State Of Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS (D. Conn. Jun. 1, 2026)).

Background. Attorneys general of various states and territories (collectively, the States) brought various antitrust enforcement actions that named generic drug manufacturers as codefendants along with major proprietary pharmaceutical companies. Many of these cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for multidistrict litigation. One such complaint, designated as the "Dermatology Complaint" case because most of the pharmaceutical compounds subject to it were used in the treatment of skin conditions, was remanded to the District of Connecticut where it had initially been brought.

Following the remand of the "Dermatology Complaint" case, the district court found that there was triable evidence of an overarching conspiracy among the proprietary manufacturers and the generic manufacturers [State of Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2025)]; reconsideration denied (Feb. 18, 2026).] That determination explicitly made no determination of any specific corporate defendant's membership in any overarching conspiracy. Several manufacturers then sought summary judgment as to (1) participation in an overarching conspiracy; and (2) membership in a conspiracy with respect to one or more of the 80 individual drugs named in the complaint.

Greenstone LLC (Greenstone) was at all relevant times a generic drug manufacturer wholly owned by multinational proprietary pharmaceutical company Pfizer, Inc., with which it shared employees, officers, office space, and headquarters. Greenstone moved for summary judgment on all claims against it. The court ruled on the issues of participation in an overarching conspiracy and conspiracies regarding specific drugs.

Specific drug conspiracies. The judge granted summary judgment to Greenstone regarding some of the Clindamycin drug conspiracies, but denied summary judgment regarding other alleged specific conspiracies. The States cited no evidence of parallel conduct regarding the 2010 Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) increase for Clindamycin liquid solution. Additionally, Greenstone did not raise its WAC price increase until nine months after proprietary manufacturer Sandoz raised its WAC price for it, during which time some Sandoz customers went over to Greenstone. As for the allegation of Greenstone's participation in a 2013 market allocation scheme for the Clindamycin solution, the States had alleged that two other defendants had entered the market and attempted to take Greenstone's customers away. On that score, the judge found "no evidence in this record from which a reasonable juror could find that it was more likely than not that Greenstone colluded in the Clindamycin solution market in 2013."

As for the gel, cream, and lotion forms of Clindamycin, the court found that a reasonable jury could find that Greenstone participated in conspiracies specific to those drugs. There was shown to be a "high level of interfirm communications at critical times" which might support an inference of collusion in the WAC pricing of those Clindamycin versions.

There similarly was evidence of sufficiently proximate interfirm communications from which a juror could infer a conspiracy in the demonstrated parallel conduct regarding the WAC pricing of the Eplerenone drug. The court accordingly denied Greenstone summary judgment on a specific conspiracy regarding Eplerenone.

A trial was also warranted regarding Greenstone’s participation in a conspiracy regarding Latanoprost. Even though the WAC prices arrived at by Greenstone and its alleged co-conspirators were not the same, the fact that the WAC prices were all increased during a relatively short period could enable a juror to conclude participation in an illegal conspiracy. "An agreement between competitors to collectively raise prices is per se illegal, even if the prices charged are not the same."

Overarching conspiracy. The judge found no "evidence to permit a reasonable juror to find that Greenstone joined the overarching conspiracy." Here, Greenstone only dealt in three drugs, two of which were not used to treat dermatological conditions in patients. Greenstone, a subsidiary under Pfizer's total control, only dealt in Pfizer-generated pharmaceuticals. Unlike other defendants in the case, Greenstone never entered into any deferred prosecution agreements with the federal government on any criminal charges, nor did any of its employees plead guilty to or assert their Fifth Amendment rights regarding any criminal allegations. None of the States' cooperating witnesses gave any testimony which, if believed, would implicate Greenstone in the overarching conspiracy.

The Case is No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS.

Judge: Shea, M.

Attorneys: Allison Frisbee, Office of the Attorney General, for State of Connecticut. Ada Anon (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for Sandoz, Inc.

Companies: Sandoz, Inc.; Greenstone LLC

Cases: CaseDecisions AntitrustNews DrugBiologicNews GCNNews GenericDrugNews PrescriptionDrugNews ConnecticutNews