×
Search

866-540-5505

Se Habla Espanol
Menu
Search

Reverse Payment Cases

Reverse Payment
Cases

Miller Shah is one of the leading law firms in the United States in representing clients in so-called “reverse payment” antitrust litigation. In such cases, Miller Shah represents private health insurers and employee health, welfare and benefit funds.

Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court recently explained “reverse payment cases” within the antitrust context in the following manner:

Patent Settlements

Company A sues Company B for patent infringement. The two companies settle under terms that require (1) Company B, the claimed infringer, not to produce the patented product until the patent’s term expires, and (2) Company A, the patentee, to pay B many millions of dollars.

Because the settlement requires the patentee to pay the alleged infringer, rather than the other way around, this kind of settlement agreement is often called a “reverse payment” settlement agreement. And the basic question here is whether such an agreement can sometimes unreasonably diminish competition in violation of the antitrust laws. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act prohibition of “restraint[s] of trade or commerce”). Cf. Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U.S. 46, 111 S.Ct. 401, 112 L.Ed.2d 349 (1990) (per curiam) (invalidating agreement not to compete).

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2223, 2227 (2013).

Championing Antitrust Claims Nationwide

The above quote from Justice Breyer provides a clear encapsulation of the claims that we have taken the lead in pursuing on behalf of clients across the country. Miller Shah is one of the lead counsels in the private litigation related to the Actavis case (i.e., In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation, 1:09-md-02084-TWT) and also plays a leadership role in the following, cutting-edge reverse payment cases in which Miller Shah represents health insurance funds seeking reimbursement for excessive or overpayments it has made in reimbursing prescription drug costs as a result of collusive anti-competitive conduct by brand name and generic prescription drug companies, as described above:

  • In re Actos Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:13-cv-9244 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2516 (D.Conn.)
  • In re Liboderm Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-5257 (N.D.Cal.)
  • In re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2472 (D.R.I.)
  • In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:13-cv-01977 (E.D.Pa.)
  • In re Solodyne Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-cv-10452 (D.Mass.)
  • In re Suboxone Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-00589 (E.D.Pa.)

Advocating for Fairness

Our Firm is committed to representing our clients in vigorously enforcing their rights under antitrust and competition laws to ensure that they generally are not harmed by anti-competitive conduct and, specifically, in the case of reverse payment cases, that their health care costs are fair and reasonable and determined as a result of competitive, non-collusive and legal practices.

To discuss reverse payment litigation, contact Miller Shah to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced antitrust attorneys. With offices in California, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, we handle cases nationwide.

Over 1 BILLION Recovered

Our team is equipped and prepared for complicated, high-stakes cases in all areas of business and civil litigation. We continuously strive to achieve the best possible results for our clients.

Novartis False Claims Act Settlement

$642 Million

Novartis False Claims Act Settlement
DST ERISA Class Action Settlement

$124.6 Million

DST ERISA Class Action Settlement
Teva False Claims Act Settlement

$54 Million

Teva False Claims Act Settlement
Norwegian Salmon Antitrust Settlement

$33 Million

Norwegian Salmon Antitrust Settlement
Virgin Airlines Wage and Hour Settlement

$31 Million

Virgin Airlines Wage and Hour Settlement
AMC Securities Settlement

$18 Million

AMC Securities Settlement
Eversource Energy ERISA Class Action Settlement

$14 Million

Eversource Energy ERISA Class Action Settlement
Universal Health Services ERISA Class Action Settlement

$12.5 Million

Universal Health Services ERISA Class Action Settlement
Safeway ERISA Class Action Settlement

$8.5 Million

Safeway ERISA Class Action Settlement
LinkedIn ERISA Class Action Settlement

$6.75 Million

LinkedIn ERISA Class Action Settlement
Coca-Cola ERISA Class Action Settlement

$3.5 Million

Coca-Cola ERISA Class Action Settlement
Beth Israel Medical ERISA Class Action Settlement

$2.9 Million

Beth Israel Medical ERISA Class Action Settlement
Rush University Medical ERISA Class Action Settlement

$2.9 Million

Rush University Medical ERISA Class Action Settlement
L Brands ERISA Class Action Settlement

$2.75 Million

L Brands ERISA Class Action Settlement
Omnicom ERISA Class Action Settlement

$2.45 Million

Omnicom ERISA Class Action Settlement

Words From Our Clients

Contact
Miller Shah LLP

While this website provides general information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer. To schedule a meeting with an attorney, please call 866-540-5505 or complete the intake form to email us.