In re Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation
|Court:||United States District Court, District of New Jersey|
|Judge:||Judge Katharine Hayden|
|Class Period:||10/29/2013 - 11/02/2016|
|Case Contacts:||John C. Browne, Lauren McMillen Ormsbee|
This case asserts claims against Allergan plc (formerly doing business as Actavis) (“Allergan”) and its top executives for violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This securities class action is asserted on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly-traded securities of Allergan from October 29, 2013 through November 2, 2016 (the “Class Period”). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants reported robust financial results to the market, attributed those results to entirely legitimate business factors and conditions, and assured investors that both the Company’s pricing practices and the generic drug market in which it operated were highly competitive. The Complaint alleges that, in truth, Allergan’s financial results were driven in material part by the Company’s collusion with competitors to dramatically increase the prices of at least six generic drugs. The Complaint further alleges that the truth about Allergan’s price fixing scheme was revealed to investors in two disclosures on August 6, 2015 and November 3, 2016.
On February 2, 2017, the Court appointed Union Asset Management as co-Lead Plaintiff for the action. On May 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs filed an initial Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. That motion was fully briefed when, on October 31, 2017, a consortium of 46 state Attorneys General filed a complaint charging Allergan as an alleged co-conspirator in an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy. This complaint described several “smoking gun” calls, emails and text between Allergan executives and other co-conspirators. On November 28, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which included newly-discovered information, including information revealed in the Attorneys General’s complaint.
Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss on January 22, 2018. The motion was fully briefed in April 2018, and was argued on April 11, 2019. A decision is pending.
On August 6, 2019, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the case is now proceeding into discovery.
Other Cases of Interest
Northern District of California John C. Browne, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Michael Mathai, Lauren M. Cruz
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.
District of Vermont John C. Browne, Rebecca E. Boon
District of South Carolina (Columbia Division) John C. Browne, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Lauren McMillen Ormsbee, Michael Mathai, Kate Aufses
GT Advanced Technologies Inc.
District of New Hampshire John C. Browne, Lauren McMillen Ormsbee
Southern District of New York John C. Browne, Richard D. Gluck, Rebecca E. Boon
Northern District of California Lauren McMillen Ormsbee, Alexander T. Payne
Venator Materials PLC
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division John C. Browne, Michael D. Blatchley, Nicholas Gersh
Southern District of New York Salvatore J. Graziano, John Rizio-Hamilton, Lauren McMillen Ormsbee, Rebecca E. Boon
Energy Transfer LP
Eastern District of Pennsylvania John C. Browne, Michael D. Blatchley, Hannah Ross, Adam H. Wierzbowski, Michael Mathai, Mathew Hough, James M. Fee
District of Illinois Eastern Division John C. Browne, Adam H. Wierzbowski