Two pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay $17.85 million in settlements to resolve charges that they engaged in widespread, long-running conspiracies to inflate and manipulate prices and reduce competition for numerous generic prescription drugs.
Lannett Company Inc. or Lannett, and Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas Inc., or Bausch, reached the agreements, which were announced on Monday, with a coalition of 44 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories,.
The agreements are part of a larger antitrust action against dozens of companies that conspired to manipulate drug prices.
As a result of the conspiracy, consumers had to pay more than 10 times as much for some drugs, ranging from antibiotic ointment to cancer treatments, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement.
As part of the agreements, Lannett and Bausch have agreed to cooperate in the ongoing multistate litigations against 30 corporate defendants and 25 individual executives, Brown said. Both companies have also agreed to make reforms to ensure fair competition and compliance with antitrust laws.
“It’s hard to imagine more despicable corporate behavior than conspiring to raise the price of medicine for people who need it,” Brown said.
The Lannett and Bausch settlements follow earlier settlements with two drug companies, Apotex and Heritage, which totaled $49.1 million. These settlements come as the states prepare for the first trial, which will likely take place in late 2026 in Connecticut.
Consumers who purchased generic prescription drugs from the two companies between May 2009 and December 2019 may be eligible for compensation. Impacted customers can call 866-290-0182, email info@AGGenericDrugs.com, or visit www.AGGenericDrugs.com to see if they’re eligible.
Among those taking part in the settlement agreement are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
New complaint
Also on Tuesday, a coalition of attorneys general filed a new lawsuit against Novartis and its generic subsidiary Sandoz alleging they conspired with other generic manufacturers to fix prices, allocate markets, and rig bids for 31 generic drugs.
The lawsuit also alleges that Novartis took steps to fraudulently transfer and drain assets from Sandoz and spin off Sandoz to shield Novartis from liability in the three previously filed state antitrust complaints against the company.
This is the fourth lawsuit filed in this case.
Case background
Attorneys general partnered on three other lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers.
- Case No. 1 included Heritage and 17 other companies who allegedly fixed the price of 15 generic drugs.
- Case No. 2 focuses on Teva Pharmaceuticals and 19 of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers.
- Cast No. 3 will be heard first and involves 26 companies fixing the prices on 80 topical generic drugs that account for billions of dollars in sales.
Seven additional pharmaceutical executives have entered into settlement agreements with the states and have been cooperating to support the states’ claims.
The cases are built on evidence from several cooperating witnesses involved in the different conspiracies, a document database of more than 60 million documents, and a phone records database containing millions of call detail records and contact information for more than 600 sales and pricing individuals in the generics industry.
The lawsuits allege that the companies coordinated their prices during industry dinners, “girls nights out,” lunches, cocktail parties, golf outings, and frequent telephone calls, emails, and text messages that sowed the seeds for their illegal agreements.
Throughout the lawsuits are reports on how defendants used terms such as “fair share,” “playing nice in the sandbox,” and “responsible competitor” to describe how they unlawfully discouraged competition, raised prices, and enforced a culture of collusion. Among the evidence states collected is a two-volume notebook containing the notes of one of the executives that details his discussions with competitors and internal company meetings over a period of several years.
