Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
In Re: Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust Litigation
Case Number:
1:19-md-02878
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Multi Party Litigation:
Multi-district Litigation, Class Action
Judge:
Firms
- ArentFox Schiff
- ArentFox Schiff LLP
- Berman Tabacco
- Cohen Milstein
- Covington & Burling
- Dugan Law Firm
- Hagens Berman
- Haynes Boone
- Kessler Topaz
- King & Spalding
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Lowey Dannenberg
- Marshall Halem
- McEldrew Purtell
- Mintz Levin
- Nussbaum Law Group
- Parker Poe
- Pendley Baudin
- Radice Law Firm
- Sperling Kenny
- Sugarman Rogers
- Wexler Boley
- White & Case
Companies
- AstraZeneca PLC
- Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
- Ranbaxy
- Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
- United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
Sectors & Industries:
-
September 20, 2022
'Excessive' Atty Fee Bid In Ranbaxy MDL Slashed By $36M
A Boston federal judge has cut $36 million from an "excessive" fee request by attorneys for two classes of plaintiffs who settled multidistrict antitrust claims against Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals for $485 million.
-
April 29, 2022
Ranbaxy Buyers' $485M Deal In Generics MDL Gets Initial Nod
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals drug purchasers nabbed initial approval of a $485 million global settlement struck in March over claims the drugmaker manipulated the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's generic-drug approval process to box out competitors.
-
April 22, 2022
Ranbaxy Buyers Seek OK On $485M Deal In Generics MDL
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals drug purchasers asked a Massachusetts federal court Friday to approve their proposed $485 million global settlement with the generic-drug maker and its parent company over antitrust claims, arguing that the agreement provides significant benefits for plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation.
-
March 24, 2022
Ranbaxy Confirms 'Global' Deal Resolving Antitrust MDL
Parties in a multidistrict lawsuit against Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals told a Boston federal judge Thursday to release their precious month of trial time after confirming that the company reached a $485 million global settlement to resolve claims it manipulated the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's generic-drug approval process to ice out competitors.
-
January 14, 2022
Ranbaxy Wants Equal Trial Time In 'Bet The Company' MDL
Ranbaxy Inc. is urging a Boston federal judge to give it equal time to defend itself in an upcoming "bet the company" trial with tens of billions of dollars potentially at stake on claims it manipulated the drug approval process to block competitors from making generic versions of three drugs.
-
November 23, 2021
Ranbaxy Can't Shake MDL Antitrust Claims As Trial Nears
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. didn't need to ever sell a dose of a drug to have wielded monopoly power over it, a Boston federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting the company's bid for an early win on antitrust claims in the multidistrict suit.
-
October 22, 2021
Ranbaxy Argues It Can't Monopolize Drugs It Never Sold
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals urged a Massachusetts federal judge in oral arguments Friday to reject antitrust claims that it manipulated the regulatory approval system, arguing that it didn't defraud the process and that a generic-drug maker like Ranbaxy can't monopolize a brand-name drug.
-
May 14, 2021
Buyers Win Cert. In Ranbaxy Generic-Drug Antitrust Case
A Massachusetts federal court on Friday certified classes for two groups of buyers accusing Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals of delaying generic versions of three different drugs by manipulating the regulatory approval system.
-
May 08, 2020
Payors In Ranbaxy MDL Lose 2 State Claims On Notice Rules
A Massachusetts federal judge on Friday cut a pair of state claims from a suit by health care plans and consumers accusing Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals of gaming the generic-drug approval system, finding the plaintiffs did not follow required advance-notice rules.
-
February 14, 2020
Ranbaxy Can't Ask 1st Circ. To Toss Drug Buyers' Suit
A Massachusetts federal judge refused Friday to let Ranbaxy Laboratories seek First Circuit relief from multidistrict litigation accusing the company of gaming the generic drug approval system to gain an unfair competitive edge, holding that appeal would only disrupt the long-running case.