In an unusual move, Celgene has backed out of a $55 million settlement with patients and payers over allegations it illegally blocked competition to multiple myeloma meds Thalomid and Revlimid. With the decision, the company will go back to fighting claims from thousands of patients and payers, who allege billions in damages.
Celgene, now part of Bristol-Myers Squibb under last year’s massive merger, originally agreed to the deal in July and backed out on December 23, plaintiffs’ lawyers say. Patient advocate David Mitchell, plus several union pension funds, brought the class-action lawsuit.
When the sides agreed to their $55 million deal, the agreement included stipulations that Celgene could back out if certain plaintiffs didn’t opt in. In all, more than 8,000 patients and 800 payers opted in to the original settlement. But 80 plaintiffs opted out in order to bring their own lawsuits, and Celgene rescinded the agreement based on those opt-outs, plaintiffs’ lawyers say.
Now, the drugmaker will have to defend against claims in a class that includes about 9,000 plaintiffs.
The case centers on allegations that Celgene refused to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid to deter copycat development and inked supply agreements to restrict the distribution of Thalomid’s active ingredient. Further, the company allegedly filed sham patent challenges as another way to block competition.
Plaintiffs say they could’ve saved more than $3 billion if a generic had been approved earlier, but Celgene’s actions blocked that possibility.
Celgene’s move is unusual, experts say. The “rescission provisions are common in class settlements, but I have never heard of a defendant ever actually rescinding an agreement,” Melinda Coolidge, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Featured News
DirecTV and Disney Resolve Dispute, Restore Programming for Subscribers
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
UK Antitrust Authority Raises Concerns Over Vodafone-Three Merger
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Brazilian Supreme Court Lifts Freeze on Starlink Accounts, Transfers $3.3 Million to National Treasury
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Steptoe Expands Antitrust Practice with Key London Hire
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Instant Ad Auctions at the Heart of Google’s Federal Monopoly Case
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
Francisco Javier Núñez Melgoza
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
Julio Garcia
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
Alejandra Palacios Prieto
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
Mateo Fernández