Consumers overcharged for certain generic drugs may receive compensation from a $49.1 million settlement with two pharmaceutical manufacturers, as announced by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. The companies involved, Apotex of Toronto and Heritage Pharmaceuticals of Eatontown, New Jersey, were accused of engaging in a scheme to inflate prices and limit competition for generic prescription drugs.
Heritage Pharmaceuticals is set to pay $10 million as part of the settlement filed on December 15, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Apotex will contribute $39.1 million, totaling the settlement amount to $49.1 million.
“This was a conspiracy to cheat the system – we won’t tolerate collusion that inflates drug prices and harms Ohioans who rely on affordable medication,” stated Yost. “We are working to restore fair competition and hold wrongdoers accountable.”
Eligibility for compensation applies to consumers who purchased specific generic prescription drugs between May 2009 and December 2019. Information on eligibility can be found at www.AGGenericDrugs.com or by contacting the provided phone number or email address.
Attorney General Yost collaborated with nearly all states and territories in filing three major antitrust complaints against multiple corporate defendants and individual executives.
The first complaint from 2016 included Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Apotex, along with other defendants concerning 15 generic drugs. Former Heritage executives Jeffery Glazer and Jason Malek have settled and are cooperating with authorities.
A second complaint in 2019 targeted Teva Pharmaceuticals, Apotex, and several large generic drug manufacturers along with senior executives.
The third complaint from 2020 involves topical generic drugs accounting for significant U.S. sales revenue, naming numerous corporate defendants and individual defendants; six pharmaceutical executives have settled in this case.
These cases are supported by evidence from cooperating witnesses, an extensive database of documents, and phone records revealing communications among industry executives.
The complaints detail a network of industry leaders using secretive methods to discuss illegal agreements disguised under terms like "fair share" and "responsible competitor." A crucial piece of evidence includes a notebook documenting these discussions kept by a cooperating witness.
This settlement marks a significant step towards addressing corporate misconduct while emphasizing Ohio's dedication to consumer protection against unlawful practices.