10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending April 26, 2025
Daily Compliance News: April 24, 2025, The Made in Malaysia Edition
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 7: National MultiPlan Litigation: A Guide for Healthcare Providers
12 Days of Regulatory Insights: Day 11 – State AGs on the Antitrust Frontline — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Daily Compliance News: November 15, 2024 - The Meta Fined (again) Edition
Antitrust Considerations in Long-Term Care — Assisted Living and the Law Podcast
Episode 323 - Carlos Villagran Discusses Rebuilding a Corporate Culture After a Crisis
The Changing Landscape of State AG Antitrust Enforcement — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
AGG Talks: Antitrust and White-Collar Crime Roundup - Analyzing the Latest Updates in the Litigation Against Trump
Fierce Competition Podcast | Letter From London: The Rise of UK Class Actions and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
JONES DAY TALKS® - Charting the Course: Antitrust's Past, Present, and Future in Labor Markets
State AG Pulse | America’s Pastime Unites AGs
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 18 - A Deep Dive Into Antitrust Violations and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force
Class Action | Eleventh Circuit Reinstates No Hire Antitrust Claims Against Burger King
Antitrust Conversations: Fundamentals of Antitrust Law
How Antitrust Regulators and the SEC Are Advancing the Wider Biden Agenda
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Podcast | Episode 100: Marguerite Willis, Nexsen Pruet Attorney
The Latest on Antitrust Compliance
NCAA vs. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma: A Win for Antitrust Law and College Football Fans
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Cryptocurrency and Antitrust Litigation
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...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a...more
On June 30, 2023, a jury in the Northern District of California found Gilead and Teva not liable in a trial accusing the companies of engaging in an illegal reverse payment to delay generic versions of two HIV drugs, Truvada...more
The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has confirmed that pay-for-delay agreements with generic manufacturers ready to enter the market violate EU antitrust rules. ...more
On October 7, 2019, California became the first state to enact legislation—Assembly Bill 824 ("AB 824")—rendering certain pharmaceutical patent litigation settlement agreements presumptively anticompetitive. This alert...more
This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more
In the European Union, Big Pharma has been operating with a target on its back for the best part of the last decade. Following its 2008 sector inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector, the Commission vowed to clamp down on...more
On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a 2014 jury verdict for AstraZeneca (AZ) and Ranbaxy regarding a 2012 payment of $700 million from AstraZeneca for Ranbaxy to abandon its challenge...more
On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from a Third Circuit decision finding that a settlement between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Teva) involving the...more
The Third Circuit recently vacated class certification, granted by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after nearly a decade of litigation, in an antitrust case alleging that a pharmaceutical company entered into agreements...more
On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more