Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Pa.: Majority of ad-hoc complaints against Epic in generic drug antitrust MDL survive dismissal, (Mar 3, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The court deprecated the plaintiffs’ treatment of the complaints as if they were all interdependent; some contained sufficient pleading, while others were plainly deficient.

Antitrust allegations against drug manufacturer Epic Pharma LLC (Epic), as embodied in eight of eleven ad-hoc complaints, easily satisfied the plausibility requirement and sufficiently tied Epic to an overarching conspiracy to control generic Ursodiol pricing and distribution at the pleading stage, held the federal district court in Philadelphia. The remaining three complaints spearheaded by HCSC, Molina, and CVS, respectively, failed to describe any anti-competitive conspiratorial conduct by Epic. The court granted Epic’s motions to dismiss only these three deficient complaints for failure to state a claim (In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:20-cv-06310-CMR (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2026)).

Background. In 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated multiple price-fixing cases about hundreds of generic drugs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) in bellweather cases about two specific drugs, clobetasol and clomipramine, reached settlements with Sandoz and Taro. In August 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the Mylan motions for summary judgment.

Several individual plaintiffs, including vendors, distributors, insurance companies, health systems, and other entities, as well as members of the class actions, filed additional complaints in various ad-hoc combinations as co-plaintiffs. The complaints alleged similar violations by several generic drug manufacturers and scores of generic drug distributors. The complaints accused Epic of violating The Sherman Act, Clayton Act, or state laws outlawing anti-competitive practices and profiting from them. The complaints generally invoked different laws with a degree of overlap.

The court now considered Epic’s eleven discrete motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Epic argued the eleven complaints did not describe any Epic anti-competitive or conspiratorial activity. Epic did not otherwise assert that the complaints failed to allege an overarching conspiracy to harm competition, nor did Epic assert that the complaints failed to allege violations of state law about unfair trade practices or unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed a joint response that treated the complaints, in the estimate of the court, like interdependent chapters in a book.

Independent pleadings. The court found eight of the eleven complaints contained sufficient detail to allege that Epic, with others, conspired to raise the price of Ursodiol. The court deprecated the plaintiffs’ treatment of the complaints as if they were all interdependent. All eleven made similar allegations about an overarching conspiracy or conspiracies that started as far back as 2009. With varying levels of detail, the complaints all alleged that Epic acted illegally in the sale and distribution of Ursodiol.

The court said each complaint would stand or fall on its own. Some of the Epic dismissal motions raised fewer issues than alleged, while others broke allegations down into sub-issues, but Epic described in detail the specific complaint that had to do with each motion sought to dismiss.

Viable complaints. Eight complaints about a putative Epic conspiracy with co-defendants Lannett Company and Actavis, aimed at limiting price competition for Ursodiol, sufficiently alleged a pricing conspiracy to survive dismissal.

Allegations of direct contact between the three co-defendants, all occurring within ten months before May and June 2014 Epic and Actavis price increases and Lannet’s entry into the Ursodiol market at a similar price, supported a supposition of parallel conduct.

The three plus factors of motive, action against self-interest, and evidence of a traditional conspiracy by agreement, also supported allegations of parallel conduct consistent with coordinated action. These eight complaints alleged that high barriers to entry in the manufacturing and distribution of Ursodiol made the industry more conducive to collusion. The eight complaints also outlined a regulatory regime driving generic drug prices down over time, which, at least in theory, would have given the three companies a common motive to set drug prices.

The complaints also sufficiently alleged Epic acted against self-interest by raising is price after a Lannett increase in the absence of change in supply and demand conditions. Finally, the eight complaints alleged facts about meetings facially establishing a traditional conspiracy. The temporal proximity of these meetings with the Epic and Actavis prices increases, as well as the onset of Lannett pricing its Ursodiol similarly, comprised a satisfactory description of a traditional conspiracy. The sufficiency of the federal law claims was likewise enough to state actionable state law claims.

Epic arguments asserting that these eight complaints were insufficiently pleaded lacked merit. The court accordingly declined to dismiss them.

Deficient complaints. The court found the remaining three amended complaints lacked descriptions of Epic conduct beyond the fact that it sold a drug whose price increased by 1000%.

The HCSC amended complaint, without identifying Epic, alleged a 1000% price increase for Ursodiol and similar prices increases for other generics. Where the complaint did identify Epic, as in connection with anticompetitive conspiracies to drive up the price of Ursodiol, it did not provide time, place, conduct, or co-conspirator details to illustrate how Epic would have joined such a conspiracy.

The Molina complaint was similarly vague. It cited a government report as the basis for the allegation that the price of Ursodiol increased by 1000% without saying when or how it happened or who caused it. This complaint merely stated that Epic cooperated in an anticompetitive scheme to violate Section 16 of the Clayton Act and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in connection with Ursodiol without describing any Epic meetings or conduct.

The CVS amended complaint had the least detail. It did not describe any specific act by Epic. It only provided an appendix of Epic trade association memberships with some detail about meetings that included Epic. This complaint then generalized to engagement in a conspiracy that mentioned other manufacturers and drugs, but did not mention Epic or Ursodiol.

These three complaints failed to describe any Epic anti-competitive conspiratorial conduct. Even if a conspiracy to control Ursodiol price and distribution existed, these three complaints did not show how Epic had any role in it. The court dismissed these three deficiently-pleaded complaints.

The Case is No. 2:20-cv-06310-CMR.

Judge: Rufe, C.

Attorneys: Allison Sheedy (Constantine Cannon LLP) for CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Sheron Korpus (Kasowitz LLP) for Actavis Elizabeth, LLC.

Companies: CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews