1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Crowell & Moring Obtains Victory In First Tried Indirect Purchaser Pharmaceutical Antitrust Case

Crowell & Moring Obtains Victory In First Tried Indirect Purchaser Pharmaceutical Antitrust Case

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.01.08

Crowell & Moring lawyers, led by Robert T. Rhoad, obtained a significant victory on behalf of Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC") in the first and only indirect purchaser antitrust case to date tried to verdict involving the pharmaceutical industry. On Thursday, January 24, 2008, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia granted HCSC's motion to treble the damages awarded by the jury to HCSC in the In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.). Initially, HCSC was included within a class of indirect purchasers/third-party payors in the underlying class actions. Although the class litigation was settled, HCSC, along with three other third-party payors (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and Federated Mutual Insurance Co.), elected to opt-out of the class settlement and litigate their antitrust claims on their own. This decision to opt-out was based on the fact that the class settlement provided the nationwide third-party payor class members only approximately $35 million, constituting mere pennies on the dollar for actual damages suffered due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the markets for two highly utilized anti-anxiety drugs -- lorazepam and clorazepate. Following years of litigation and a month-long trial, the jury found in favor of our client, HCSC, as to all claims and as to all damages alleged. The Court denied various post-verdict motions filed by Defendants and granted Plaintiffs' motions for trebling and other enhancements to the damages awarded by the jury. The Court's recent damages award to the opt-out Plaintiffs that litigated and tried their claims, including HCSC, as trebled/enhanced, now totals over $69 million (i.e., roughly 200% of the settlement obtained for the entire nationwide class of third-party payors) and does not yet include additional amounts for attorneys' fees and costs and/or interest that are the subjects of pending supplemental motions.

Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26

ASBCA Denies Government Motion to Dismiss, Providing Key Guidance on Contractor Claim Standards Post-ECC International

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. ...