Actavis Intuniv Settlement
On August 19, 2020, attorneys for the direct purchaser class announced a settlement with Actavis over allegations that it entered a pay-for-delay agreement with Shire for Intuniv. Intuniv is used to treat attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and had global sales of $330 million in 2014 (before generic entry). The amount of the settlement, $19.9 million, has now been announced. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 11, 2020.
The direct purchasers allege that Actavis delayed its generic version of Intuniv by over two years and in exchange Shire agreed not to launch an authorized generic. Furthermore, Actavis agreed to pay Shire 25% of its profits during the 180-day exclusivity period. The class period is October 19, 2012 through June 1, 2015. The court denied class certification to a class of indirect payors and that denial is currently on appeal. TNotice of class certification was provided in January 2020 and the opt-out date was February 28, 2020. No additional notice or opt-out period will be provided in connection with the settlement. The deadline for objections is November 10, 2020.
Intuniv Litigation History
In December 2016, a proposed class of drug purchaser filed suit against Shire and Actavis. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion by defendants to dismiss the complaint in October of 2017. Following the denial of that motion, the court certified a class on September 24, 2019.
Pay For Delay Antitrust Lawyers
Schneider Wallace has successfully represented nationwide insurance companies and other sophisticated institutional plaintiffs in recovering for price fixing due to branded and generic drug and medical device price manipulation. Schedule an appointment with our legal team to learn more about filing an antitrust lawsuit. Schneider Wallace has offices in California, Texas, North Carolina and Puerto Rico and litigates in jurisdictions throughout the country in state and federal administrative agencies and courts.
In re Intuniv Antitrust Litigation, No. 16-cv-12653-ADB (D. Mass.).