Bayer Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott Laboratories, and Roche Diagnostics have won dismissal of federal racketeering claims accusing them of inflating the prices of glucose test strips, though they still face state law claims.
Chief US District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey ruled Friday, May 28, that plaintiff MSP Recovery, a company that specializes in recovering claims wrongly paid out by third-party Medicare administrators, lacked standing to sue under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
“We are thankful for the court’s time and attention in considering the positions of all of the parties and look forward to litigating this case on the merits,” said Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, a lawyer for MSP.
Roche, which is represented by William Sarraille of Sidley Austin, declined to comment. The other defendants and attorneys representing them – Andrew Kassof of Kirkland & Ellis for Abbott, David Rosenbloom of McDermott Will & Emery for Bayer, William Cavanaugh of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler for J&J – did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
MSP filed the lawsuit in 2019, acting as assignee for claims by various private Medicare Advantage plans, health maintenance organizations, and other entities that administer plans for Medicare beneficiaries.
It alleged that the companies schemed with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the companies that act as middlemen between drugmakers, health plans, and pharmacies, to inflate the prices paid for drugs by health plans for glucose test strips, which are used by diabetic patients to monitor blood sugar. This allowed the PBMs to pocket the excess in the form of rebates, while the defendants benefited from favorable treatment of their products in PBMs’ formularies, they claimed.
MSP claimed the defendants accomplished this by reporting inflated average wholesale prices, which are used as the basis for reimbursement. They brought claims under RICO as well as numerous state consumer protection laws.
In moving to dismiss, the defendants stated that MSP lacked standing under RICO in light of the US Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Illinois Brick Co v. Illinois, which held that only direct purchasers, not indirect purchasers, can bring antitrust claims under the Clayton Antitrust Act. New Jersey courts have applied that same standard to RICO claims, they stated.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Judge Mehta Questions Both Sides in Landmark Google Antitrust Case
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
FCC Urges Urgent Funding for Removal of Chinese Telecom Equipment from U.S. Networks
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
Former Pioneer CEO Facing Potential Criminal Charges For Colluding With OPEC
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Regulator Greenlights K-Pop Powerhouse Deal
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
Exxon’s Pioneer Purchase Approved, Former CEO Barred from Board
May 2, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI