Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Approval of $13.25M settlement sought in Prograf suit, (Feb 5, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Indirect purchasers of the branded prescription immunosuppressant drug Prograf are seeking preliminary approval of a $13.25 million settlement that would dispose of claims that Astellas Pharma US, Inc. delayed approval of generic versions of Prograf (tacrolimus), in violation of the antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws of certain states. The motion to lift stay and for leave to file for preliminary approval of class action settlement with Astellas was filed yesterday in the federal district court in Boston (In re Prograf Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2242).

Prograf is a branded prescription immunosuppressant used in organ transplant patients, manufactured by Astellas. Indirect purchasers, including consumers and third-party payors like Bluecross/Blueshield of Louisiana, allege that Astellas filed a baseless citizen petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to delay approval of generic versions of Prograf.

The indirect purchasers seek certification of a class consisting of all persons (“Consumers”) or entities (“Third Party Payors”) in the United States and its territories who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for branded Prograf capsules and/or any of its AB-rated generic equivalents in any form in 30 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, for consumption by themselves, members of their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale, at any time during the period from April 15, 2008, until December 31, 2010.

Arguing that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be preliminarily approved, the indirect purchasers assert that: (1) the settlement class is ascertainable and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and meets predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b); (2) the proposed $13.25 million settlement agreement is the product of good faith, extensive, arm’s-length negotiations; (3) there was more than sufficient discovery and investigation for class counsel to make an informed decision; (4) the proponents of the settlement are highly experienced in antitrust litigation; and (5) the proposed settlement is in the best interest of the class.

Attorneys: J. Gerard Stranch, IV (Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC) and James R. Dugan, II (Dugan Law Firm) for Indirect Purchaser Class Counsel.

Companies: Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co.; Astellas Pharma US, Inc.

News: Antitrust MassachusettsNews