CHARLESTON — A Mason Circuit Judge has approved a $17 million settlement between the state and drug companies Pfizer and Ranbaxy in an antitrust case about a generic version of cholesterol medication Lipitor.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey’s office announced the settlement December 12. The lawsuit alleged the two companies conspired to delay the introduction of a generic version of Pfizer’s Lipitor that was produced by Ranbaxy. West Virginia is the only state to successfully filed such a suit.
“This is a big victory for the free market and consumers who may have paid more than what they should have for the much-needed medication,” Morrisey said. “In all aspects of business, and that includes the pharmaceutical business, competition is key to a healthy marketplace.”
Morrisey
| File photo
Consumers who may have a claim will be able to go to the website wvlipitorclaim.com, which will be accessible soon, for more information on how to file a claim. Those who have questions about the claim process can also call the claim administrator at a number that will be published at a later date.
The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and alleged the two companies created a scheme that prevented a generic, cheaper version of the cholesterol-lowering drug to be introduced on the market for 20 months. Lipitor’s original patent expired on March 24, 2010.
According to Thursday’s court order, Pfizer will pay the state $8.75 million as well as $2,187,500 in attorney fees and expenses. Ranbaxy will pay the state $8.25 million as well as $1,612, 500 in attorney fees and expenses for the state’s special assistant attorneys general.
The order also says the AG’s office releases the defendants in this settlement, but the state does not release any of its claims asserted in federal lawsuits filed in Connecticut against Sandoz Inc., Teva Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. The state also does not release any claims by West Virginia citizens in a federal Lipitor antitrust Multi-District Litigation case in New Jersey.
The order directs the state to implement a plan of distribution to consumers, and the funds distributed to the AG’s office will be placed in its consumer protection fund and shall be used for direct and indirect administrative purposes, investigative purposes, compliance, enforcement or litigation costs and services incurred for consumer protection purposes. The funds will be held for appropriation by the Legislature for distribution to taxpayers and consumers. After the conclusion of the claims process, any residual funds previously set aside for payment of consumer claims shall be deposited into an antitrust fund.
The state has chosen ILYM Group to serve as the agent for dissemination of notice of the settlements to West Virginia citizens and residents, and to serve as claims administrator.
In the order, Mason Circuit Court Judge Anita Harold Ashley praises the work of counsel on both sides of the settlement “for their diligent, dedicated and zealous advocacy.”
“All counsel worked hard, well represented their clients’ interests before this court with the highest levels of professionalism and decorum,” she wrote. “I commend counsel for both defendants for the zealous representation of their clients over the entire course of litigation, and their cooperative efforts to effectuate a resolution.
“Finally, I want to commend the State of West Virginia through its Special Assistant Attorneys’ General for their advocacy, tenacity and perseverance to represent the interests of the state and its residents in a case that has been litigated for over a dozen years.
“It is evident that without the excellent advocacy of all of the lawyers, a resolution could not have been reached. The court is thankful for the professionalism displayed by all counsel.”
The case originally was filed by former state Attorney General Darrell McGraw, who passed away last weekend, in the final days of his tenure in January 2013. Outside counsel hired by McGraw to represent the state included Charleston attorney Troy Giatras as well as the Philadelphia firm Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman.
The defendants tried to remove the case to federal court, but it was remanded back to state court. The defendants then tried to appeal that decision to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeal also was denied.
Mason Circuit Court case number 13-C-1