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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
