Skip to content
Main Menu
Utah Attorney General
Search
Attorney General
Sean D. Reyes
Utah Office of the Attorney General
Alerts
Close
Secondary Navigation

Attorney General Reyes Joins Third Price-Fixing Investigation Into Generic Drug Industry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 10, 2020

NEW ANTITRUST PRICE-FIXING INVESTIGATION FOR GENERIC DRUG INDUSTRY
AG REYES JOINS COALITION FILING 3RD COMPLAINT

Ongoing Investigation Built on Evidence from Multiple Cooperating Witnesses, 20 Million+ Documents, Phone Record Database Containing Millions of Call Detail Records for Over 600 Sales and Pricing Individuals

SALT LAKE CITY – Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes has joined a third antitrust investigation lawsuit into price-fixing by generic drug manufacturers. The complaint says 26 companies conspired to artificially inflate and manipulate prices for at least 80 generic topical dermatological drugs, reduce competition, and unreasonably restrain trade for generic drugs sold across the United States.

The topical drugs at the center of the Complaint include creams, gels, lotions, ointments, shampoos, and solutions used to treat a variety of skin conditions, pain, and allergies.

This new lawsuit names 26 corporate Defendants and 10 individual Defendants (listed below) and seeks damages, civil penalties, and actions by the court to restore competition to the generic drug market.  It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

“Generic drugs account for the majority of prescriptions filled in Utah and nationwide. So it is of paramount importance that these drugs remain affordable as Congress intended when the Hatch-Waxman Act was passed over thirty years ago,” said Attorney General Reyes. “Our investigation shows these companies are working together – instead of competing against each other – in order to fix higher than market value prices. We still need to prove our case in court. But if we are right, it’s illegal behavior that is hurting Utahns and these companies must be held accountable.”

The Complaint stems from an ongoing investigation built on evidence from several cooperating witnesses at the core of the conspiracy, a massive document database of over 20 million documents, and a phone records database containing millions of call detail records and contact information for over 600 sales and pricing individuals in the generics industry. Among the records obtained by the States is a two-volume notebook containing the contemporaneous notes of one of the States’ cooperators that memorialized his discussions during phone calls with competitors and internal company meetings over a period of several years.

Details:

Between 2007 and 2014, three generic drug manufacturers, Taro, Perrigo, and Fougera (now Sandoz) sold nearly two-thirds of all generic topical products dispensed in the United States. The multistate investigation has uncovered comprehensive, direct evidence of unlawful agreements to minimize competition and raise prices on dozens of topical products. The Complaint alleges longstanding agreements among manufacturers to ensure a “fair share” of the market for each competitor and to prevent “price erosion” due to competition.

The Complaint is the third to be filed in an ongoing, expanding investigation that the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General has referred to as possibly the largest domestic corporate cartel case in the history of the United States. The first Complaint, still pending in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was filed in 2016 and now includes 18 corporate Defendants, two individual Defendants, and 15 generic drugs. Two former executives from Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Jeffery Glazer and Jason Malek, have entered into settlement agreements and are cooperating with the Attorneys General working group in that case. The second Complaint, also pending in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was filed in 2019 against Teva Pharmaceuticals and 19 of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers. The Complaint names 16 individual senior executive Defendants. The States are currently preparing for trial on that Complaint.

Corporate Defendants:

  1. Sandoz, Inc.
  2. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc.
  3. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
  4. Actavis Pharma, Inc.
  5. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  6. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
  7. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.
  8. Bausch Health Americas, Inc.
  9. Bausch Health, US LLC
  10. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  11. G&W Laboratories, Inc.
  12. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA
  13. Greenstone LLC
  14. Lannett Company, Inc.
  15. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  16. Mallinckrodt Inc.
  17. Mallinckrodt plc
  18. Mallinckrodt LLC
  19. Mylan Inc.
  20. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  21. Perrigo New York, Inc.
  22. Pfizer, Inc.
  23. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
  24. Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  25. Teligent, Inc.
  26. Wockhardt USA, LLC

Individual Defendants:

  1. Ara Aprahamian, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Defendant Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A, Inc.
  2. Mitchell Blashinsky, the Vice President of Marketing for Generics at Defendant Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. from January 2007 through May 2012, and Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Defendant Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA from June 2012 through March 2014.
  3. Douglas Boothe, the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant Actavis from August 2008 through December 2012 and the Executive Vice President and General Manager of Defendant Perrigo New York, Inc. from January 2013 through July 2016.
  4. James Grauso, the former Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Defendant G&W Laboratories from January 2010 through December 2011; the Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations for Defendant Aurobindo from December 2011 through January 2014; and the Executive Vice President, N.A. Commercial Operations at Defendant Glenmark from February 2014 to the present.
  5. Walt Kaczmarek, the Senior Director, National Accounts, Vice President, National Accounts and Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations from November 2004 through November 2012 for Fougera Pharmaceuticals, a division of Nycomed US, Inc. (currently part of Defendant Sandoz, Inc.), and Vice President – General Manager, and President, Multi-Source Pharmaceuticals from November 2013 through August 2016 for Defendant Mallinckrodt.
  6.  Armando Kellum, the former Vice President, Contracting and Business Analytics at Sandoz.
  7.  Kurt Orlofski, the President and Chief Executive Officer from April 2007 through August 2009 for Defendant Wockhardt USA, and President of Defendant G&W Labs, Inc. from September 2009 through December 2016. 
  8.  Mike Perfetto, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Defendant Actavis from August 2003 through January 2013, and the Chief Commercial Officer for Defendant Taro from January 2013 through his recent retirement from the company.
  9.  Erika Vogel-Baylor, the former Vice President for Sales and Marketing for Defendant G&W Labs, Inc. since July 2011.
  10.  John Wesolowski, the Senior Vice President of Commercial Operations for Defendant Perrigo since February 2004.

Drugs listed in the complaint as subject to price-fixing and market allocation agreements:

  1. Acetazolamide Tablets
  2. Adapalene Cream
  3. Alclometasone Dipropionate Cream
  4. Alclometasone Dipropionate Ointment
  5. Ammonium Lactate Cream
  6. Ammonium Lactate Lotion
  7. Betamethasone Dipropionate Cream
  8. Betamethasone Dipropionate Lotion
  9. Betamethasone Valerate Cream
  10. Betamethasone Valerate Lotion
  11. Betamethasone Valerate Ointment
  12. Bromocriptine Mesylate Tablets
  13. Calcipotriene Solution
  14. Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate Ointment
  15. Carbamazepine ER Tablets
  16. Cefpodoxime Proxetil Oral Suspension
  17. Cefpodoxime Proxetil Tablets
  18. Ciclopirox Cream
  19. Ciclopirox Shampoo
  20. Ciclopirox Solution
  21. Clindamycin Phosphate Cream
  22. Clindamycin Phosphate Gel
  23. Clindamycin Phosphate Lotion
  24. Clindamycin Phosphate Solution
  25. Clobetasol Propionate Cream
  26. Clobetasol Propionate Emollient Cream
  27. Clobetasol Propionate Gel
  28. Clobetasol Propionate Ointment
  29. Clobetasol Propionate Solution
  30. Clotrimazole 1% Cream
  31. Clotrimazole Betamethasone Dipropionate Cream
  32. Clotrimazole Betamethasone Dipropionate Lotion
  33. Desonide Cream
  34. Desonide Lotion
  35. Desonide Ointment
  36. Desoximetasone Ointment
  37. Econazole Nitrate Cream
  38. Eplerenone Tablets
  39. Erythromycin Base/Ethyl Alcohol Solution
  40. Ethambutol HCL Tablets
  41. Fluocinolone Acetonide Cream
  42. Fluocinolone Acetonide Ointment
  43. Fluocinonide .1% Cream
  44. Fluocinonide Gel 
  45. Fluocinonide Ointment 
  46. Fluocinonide Solution
  47. Fluticasone Propionate Lotion
  48. Griseofulvin Microsize Tablets
  49. Halobetasol Propionate Cream
  50. Halobetasol Propionate Ointment
  51. Hydrocortisone Acetate Suppositories
  52. Hydrocortisone Valerate Cream
  53. Imiquimod Cream
  54. Ketoconazole Cream
  55. Latanoprost Drops
  56. Lidocaine Ointment
  57. Methazolamide Tablets
  58. Methylphenidate HCL Tablets
  59. Methylphenidate HCL ER Tablets
  60. Metronidazole Cream
  61. Metronidazole .75% Gel
  62. Metronidazole .1% Gel
  63. Metronidazole Lotion
  64. Mometasone Furoate Cream
  65. Mometasone Furoate Ointment
  66. Mometasone Furoate Solution
  67. Nafcillin Sodium Injectable Vials
  68. Nystatin Ointment
  69. Nystatin Triamcinolone Cream
  70. Nystatin Triamcinolone Ointment
  71. Oxacillin Sodium Injectable Vials
  72. Phenytoin Sodium ER Capsules
  73. Pioglitazone HCL Metformin HCL Tablets
  74. Prochlorperazine Maleate Suppositories
  75. Promethazine HCL Suppositories
  76. Tacrolimus Ointment
  77. Terconazole Cream
  78. Triamcinolone Acetonide Cream
  79. Triamcinolone Acetonide Ointment
  80. Triamcinolone Acetonide Paste


Attorney General Reyes joined the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Territory of Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin in filing the complaint.

Read a copy of the complaint here.

###

Utah Attorney General Reyes Joins 50 Attorneys General in Multistate Google Investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 9, 2019

UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL REYES JOINS 50 ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN GOOGLE MULTISTATE BIPARTISAN ANTITRUST INVESTIGATION 
 

SALT LAKE CITY – Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes today announced that Utah is joining the attorneys general in 48 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico in a multistate, bipartisan investigation of tech giant Google’s business practices in accordance with state and federal antitrust laws.

The bipartisan coalition announced plans to investigate Google’s overarching control of online advertising markets and search traffic that may have led to anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers. Legal experts from each state will work in cooperation with Federal authorities to assess competitive conditions for online services and ensure that Americans have access to free digital markets.

“Now, more than ever, information is power, and the most important source of information in Americans’ day-to-day lives is the internet. When it comes to internet search, Google is-and has been-the 90% market share leader.” said Attorney General Reyes. “There is nothing wrong with a business becoming the dominant player if it does so fairly, but we are concerned Google’s dominance has been achieved and maintained through business practices designed to thwart competition and prevent new alternatives from ever existing. If true, such practices have undermined consumer choice, stifled innovation, violated users’ privacy, and impermissibly put Google in control of the flow and dissemination of online information.

“At times, there is a fine line between aggressive and abusive business practices. This investigation will tell us if Google has crossed that line. We intend to closely follow the facts we discover in this case and proceed as necessary. I raised these issues with the FTC several years ago but didn’t have the resources as a single state to pursue this behemoth. I am glad so many of my colleagues have seen the wisdom and importance of pursuing this investigation.”

Past investigations of Google uncovered violations ranging from advertising illegal drugs in the United States to now three antitrust actions brought by the European Commission. None of these previous investigations, however, fully address the source of Google’s sustained market power and the ability to engage in serial and repeated business practices with the intention to protect and maintain that power.
 

###

Site SettingsSettings