Asacol class lacks standing for 22 claims, common issues don't predominate, Warner Chilcott says in appellate brief

( February 23, 2018, 23:31 GMT | Official Statement) -- MLex Summary: Plaintiffs accusing Warner Chilcott of unlawfully delaying generic Asacol lack standing for claims under the laws of 22 of the 26-jurisdiction class that was certified, Warner argued in its brief appealing class certification. Warner argues that its expert witness "confirmed that Plaintiffs only had purchases or reimbursements satisfying the dual-purchase requirement in, at most, four states— Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin." The company also argues that the plaintiffs' damages model doesn't fit their theory of liability, that whether a particular plaintiffs was coerced into purchasing Asacol-HD or Delzicol, and there is more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members.See document below....

Prepare for tomorrow’s regulatory change, today

MLex identifies risk to business wherever it emerges, with specialist reporters across the globe providing exclusive news and deep-dive analysis on the proposals, probes, enforcement actions and rulings that matter to your organization and clients, now and in the longer term.

Know what others in the room don’t, with features including:

Daily newsletters for Antitrust, M&A, Trade, Data Privacy & Security, Technology, AI and more
Custom alerts on specific filters including geographies, industries, topics and companies to suit your practice needs
Predictive analysis from expert journalists across North America, the UK and Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
Curated case files bringing together news, analysis and source documents in a single timeline

Experience MLex today with a 14-day free trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Asacol class lacks standing for 22 claims, common issues don't predominate, Warner Chilcott says in appellate brief

Prepare for tomorrow’s regulatory change, today

Documents

Related Sections