West Virginia Attorney General (AG) Patrick Morrisey announced a total $17 million settlement agreement with pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer and Ranbaxy after more than a decade of litigation regarding the companies’ alleged “pay-for-delay” antitrust violations related to the cholesterol drug, Lipitor.
Background
In 2008, Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled pending patent litigation involving Lipitor, with Pfizer granting Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets. Beginning in 2011, private actions were filed alleging that Pfizer and Ranbaxy conspired by entering into an anticompetitive agreement to delay the release of Ranbaxy’s cheaper and generic version of Lipitor in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. These private actions were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. Pfizer announced a global $93 million settlement of this litigation in February 2024.
In 2013, the West Virginia AG filed an action in the Circuit Court of Mason County, WV, against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, asserting claims substantially similar to the claims asserted in the private actions. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged violations arising under the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The AG retained outside counsel on a contingency fee basis to prosecute the action.
After more than a decade of litigation, on December 12, 2024, the Circuit Court of Mason County approved the parties’ settlement, which included the following terms:
- Monetary payment to the state:
- Pfizer: $8.75 million
- Ranbaxy: $8.25 million
- Monetary payment to outside counsel:
- Pfizer: $2,187,500 plus reasonable expenses
- Ranbaxy: $1,612,500
On January 10, Morrisey announced the share each county and city within West Virginia would be entitled to receive from the reimbursements obtained from Pfizer and Ranbaxy. The quantities per county and city differ based on population size. The cities will receive a total of $1,855,000, and the counties will be receiving a total of $1,630,000.
Why It Matters
West Virginia’s lawsuit follows state AG’s traditional playbook of keeping an eye on private litigation brought against pharmaceutical companies, determining whether litigation is warranted, and, if so, filing their own litigation in a favorable home state forum. In complex litigation such as this matter, and especially in states like West Virginia that have limited attorneys in the state AG’s office responsible for filing actions under state consumer protection and antitrust laws, outside counsel is often retained on a contingency fee basis to prosecute these cases. Accordingly, if a company’s practices are subject to private litigation, especially before an MDL, the company should establish a proactive strategy to prepare for and respond to state AG inquiries.
