California judge approves BMS $10.8m settlement
A judge at the US District Court for the Northern District of California has granted a motion for preliminary approval of a $10.8 million settlement in an antitrust suit.
On Friday, June 3, District Judge Edward Chen approved the settlement which would resolve direct buyers claims that alleged Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) had engaged in anti-competitive conduct to block generic competition.
“All the relevant factors weigh in favour of preliminarily approving the proposed settlement between plaintiff and BMS,” said Chen.
As part of the proposed settlement, BMS will pay $10.8 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of class members, and up to an additional $200,000 toward the cost of providing notice of the proposed settlement to the class members.
The proposed settlement further provides that BMS will pay $10.8 million into a Settlement Fund for the benefit of Class Members, and up to an additional $200,000 toward the cost of providing notice of the proposed settlement to Class Members.
As part of the settlement, BMS will permanently waive and not enforce the ‘no-generics restraint’ which exists in BMS’ collaboration agreement with Gilead on the product Evotaz (atazanavir/cobicistat).
In a May 2019 class action lawsuit, HIV and AIDS activists sued BMS, Gilead and Johnson & Johnson, accusing the pharmaceutical companies of engaging in a long-running scheme to curb generic competition for drugs used to treat HIV infection.
Then, in October 2020, KPH Healthcare brought a class action complaint on behalf of itself and a class of direct purchasers of Combination antiretroviral therapy regimen drugs (cART) against the pharmaceutical companies.
“As a result of defendants’ anticompetitive conduct, plaintiff and members of a putative direct purchaser class paid more for cART regimen drugs than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of defendants’ unlawful conduct and sustained damages in the form of overcharges for their cART regimen drugs requirements,” said the suit.
Soon after filing of the latter claim, the two cases were linked. The settlement has been approved for both cases.
A final approval hearing will be held on September 15. At that time, the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement, any objections to the settlement, and whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement, among other things.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
