Settlement Structure: Claims Made
Closed Settlement Statement:
According to court documents, the claim submission deadline has passed. Please contact the claims administrator if you have any questions.Case Summary:
The defendants in this Brand Settlement of an antitrust lawsuit include Actavis, plc, Forest Laboratories, LLC, (makers of Namenda), Merz GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, and Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KgaA (the patent holders for Namenda). The complaint alleged that these Brand Defendants, along with the Generic Defendants, conspired in a monopolization scheme to keep generic versions of Namenda out of the market and thereby keep Namenda prices higher than they otherwise would have been.
A Generic Settlement was previously reached with a group of companies, which are the Generic Defendants.Docket Number:
Company: Forest Laboratories LLC
Filing Deadline: February 3, 2023
Class Period: June 1, 2012 to December 31, 2017
Objection Deadline: February 3, 2023
Exclusion Deadline: February 3, 2023
Final Approval Hearing: March 13, 2023Proof of Purchase:
Individuals are asked, if possible, to provide documentation of at least one purchase of brand Namenda IR 5mg or 10mg tablets or Namenda XR capsules. This may include records from your pharmacy showing your purchases of Namenda or a note or records from your doctor describing the Namenda IR 5mg or 10mg tablets or Namenda XR capsules you were prescribed.
Third-party payors must provide transaction data to support claims of $300,000 or more, although the Claims Administrator may also require transaction data to support claims for smaller amounts.
You may be eligible if you belong to either of the following classes:
- The Brands Defendants Class is all third-party payors who indirectly bought, paid for, or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for branded Namenda IR 5mg or 10mg tablets, their AB-rated generic equivalents, or Namenda XR capsules, other than for resale, in Alabama, Arizona, California, D.C., 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, and Wisconsin, for consumption by themselves, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, between June 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017. (Note that this settlement class does not include individual consumers.)
- The Generic Defendants Class is all persons or entities in the US and its territories who indirectly bought, paid for, or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for branded Namenda IR 5mg or 10mg tablets or Namenda XR capsules, for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale, at any time between April 14, 2010 and the date the anticompetitive effects of the Generic Defendants’ unlawful conduct ends. The settlement with Teva also includes the AB-rated generic equivalents of Namenda IR 5mg or 10mg tablets.Typical Settlement Amount:
Payments according to a plan of allocation, presumably based on purchases, payments, or reimbursements.
The gross settlement amount for the Brand Defendant Settlement (which will include payments for third-party payors only) is more than $54 million, while the gross settlement amount for the Generic Defendants Settlement (which will include the payments for individuals) is a little over $2 million. The Notice says, “The allocable portion of the Generic Defendants’ settlement is substantially less than the expenses … that Class Counsel have incurred… Therefore, due to additional costs…, the amount allocated to the Generic Defendants Settlement may not warrant distribution to the Generic Defendants Class and instead would pour over into the Third-Party Payor Pool…”
Total Settlement Amount: $54,400,000 for the Brand Defendants Settlement; $2,038,000 for the Generic Defendants SettlementClass Representative Proposed Incentive Fee:
Miller Law LLC
Safirstein Law, LLC
Case Name: In re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
Settlement Website: In Re Namenda Indirect Antitrust Litigation Website
AB Data, Ltd.
In re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 173021
Milwaukee, WI 53217