Judge Certifies Namenda Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit

A U.S. District Court judge has certified a class action claiming drugmakers conspired to delay the release of generic versions of Namenda, a drug used to treat Alzheimer’s disease, to the market.

The class action lawsuit, filed by the Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund (SBA), alleges the defendants entered into reverse-payment settlements with manufacturers of generic versions of Namenda to delay the generics’ release into the market and that the defendants’ conduct harmed competition.

As a result, the class action alleges, Class Members were injured because they overpaid on their purchases of Namenda IR, Namenda XR, and generic Namenda IR, according to the settlement website.

Namenda IR and Namenda XR — the extended-release version of the drug — are brand-name drugs containing active ingredient memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s, according to the order by Judge Colleen McMahon. Namenda IR was introduced to the U.S. Market in 2003.

The order defines the Class as all third-party payors who indirectly purchased, and/or paid, and/or provided reimbursement for, some or all of the purchase price for branded Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets, their AB-rated generic equivalents, and/or Namenda XR capsules, other than for resale, in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island (for purchases after July 15, 2013), South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., for consumption by themselves, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, from June 1, 2012, through Dec. 31, 2017.

Third-party payors are entities other than the patient or the health care provider — such as health insurance companies — that provide reimbursement for health care expenses. Indirect purchasers are those who don’t buy the product directly from the manufacturer.

The defendants maintain they have not done anything wrong, and none of the claims allege Namenda is unsafe or ineffective.

Cash settlements have been reached with Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. Cobalt Laboratories Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and/or Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. (jointly, “Dr. Reddy’s”), Upsher-Smith Laboratories Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Sun India Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., and Wockhardt Limited and Wockhardt USA LLC.

Anyone who wishes to retain the right to sue the defendants separately about the claims leveled in the class action lawsuit may ask to be excluded from the Class.

The deadline to request to be excluded is May 28, 2021.

Are you an indirect purchaser of Namenda? Let us know in the comment section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Marvin A. Miller and Lori A. Fanning of Miller Law LLC, and Peter Safirstein Elizabeth Metcalf of Safirstein Metcalf LLP.

The Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Martin Shkreli Drug Monopoly Class Action Claims 4,000% Hike in Price
• Chili’s Customers Get Cert in Data Breach Class Action
• Do You Qualify: YMCA, YWCA Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Claim Review
• Vehicle Safety Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation