Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judge OKs $150 Mil. Settlement in Flonase Class Action
In June, a' federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $150 million settlement by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) of a 33-member direct purchaser class action over allegations the drugmaker monopolized the market for its nasal spray Flonase. The judge also approved the payment of $50 million in attorney fees for plaintiffs class counsel.
GSK said in a statement, however, that it agreed to the settlement “in order to avoid the protracted disruption, expense and uncertainty of continuing litigation. It's important to note that in reaching the settlement, the parties have agreed that it is not an admission or evidence of any violation of any statute or law, or any liability or wrongdoing by GSK.”
The case settled shortly before going to trial and after the judge denied GSK motions for summary judgment, including one on causation and one on Noerr-Pennington immunity, which immunizes private entities from liability under antitrust laws.
“A proposed settlement totaling $150 million cash is reasonable both in absolute terms and in light of the circumstances of this litigation, particularly the risks of establishing liability at trial,” the opinion said in analyzing the reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the risks of litigation and the best possible recovery for the class, among other factors in favor of approving the settlement. “Under this settlement, each class member can benefit from the $150 million fund immediately, and avoid the uncertainties and delay inherent in continuing to litigate this complex class action.”
Among other risks, there was no guarantee the jury would have found GSK liable or a guarantee on how the jury would have responded to the “complicated economic data necessary to show damages,” the judge reasoned. Class counsel reported they spent more than 41,000 hours litigating this case over almost five years, according to the opinion.
The average billable rate is $407 per hour, according to the judge's opinion. The lodestar multiplier is calculated by dividing the attorney fees of $50 million by the total amount of hours devoted to the litigation times the $16.75 million in class counsel's hourly rates. There is a multiplier of 2.99 in the case under the calculation, and it is within the “generally acceptable range and provides additional support for approving the attorneys' fees request.”
Once all the claims are submitted, payments will be distributed based on each class member's percentage of the total market purchases, the judge said, also approving $2.1 million from the settlement fund for the plaintiffs' counsel's expenses in prosecuting the class action.
She also approved $50,000 to class representative American Sales and $40,000 to class representative Meijer in recognition of the work they took in representing the class. The plaintiffs had sought larger incentive awards of $95,000 for American Sales and $75,000 to Meijer. American Sales filed the first complaint and litigated its case for a year before Meijer filed its own action.
There is another indirect purchaser class action involving a proposed $35 million settlement that is still pending before the court. The plaintiffs in that case are both consumers and third parties who paid for or reimbursed consumers' use of Flonase or its generic equivalents.
GSK also agreed to settle for $11 million claims from over 30 large commercial health insurers, and those insurers have agreed to give $1 million of their recovery in fees to the indirect purchaser class action counsel for “having created the benefits to be received by the SHPs (settling health plans) and/or under certain conditions for payment to the settlement class.”
' Amaris Elliott-Engel,
The Legal Intelligencer
'
'
Judge OKs $150 Mil. Settlement in Flonase Class Action
In June, a' federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $150 million settlement by
GSK said in a statement, however, that it agreed to the settlement “in order to avoid the protracted disruption, expense and uncertainty of continuing litigation. It's important to note that in reaching the settlement, the parties have agreed that it is not an admission or evidence of any violation of any statute or law, or any liability or wrongdoing by GSK.”
The case settled shortly before going to trial and after the judge denied GSK motions for summary judgment, including one on causation and one on Noerr-Pennington immunity, which immunizes private entities from liability under antitrust laws.
“A proposed settlement totaling $150 million cash is reasonable both in absolute terms and in light of the circumstances of this litigation, particularly the risks of establishing liability at trial,” the opinion said in analyzing the reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the risks of litigation and the best possible recovery for the class, among other factors in favor of approving the settlement. “Under this settlement, each class member can benefit from the $150 million fund immediately, and avoid the uncertainties and delay inherent in continuing to litigate this complex class action.”
Among other risks, there was no guarantee the jury would have found GSK liable or a guarantee on how the jury would have responded to the “complicated economic data necessary to show damages,” the judge reasoned. Class counsel reported they spent more than 41,000 hours litigating this case over almost five years, according to the opinion.
The average billable rate is $407 per hour, according to the judge's opinion. The lodestar multiplier is calculated by dividing the attorney fees of $50 million by the total amount of hours devoted to the litigation times the $16.75 million in class counsel's hourly rates. There is a multiplier of 2.99 in the case under the calculation, and it is within the “generally acceptable range and provides additional support for approving the attorneys' fees request.”
Once all the claims are submitted, payments will be distributed based on each class member's percentage of the total market purchases, the judge said, also approving $2.1 million from the settlement fund for the plaintiffs' counsel's expenses in prosecuting the class action.
She also approved $50,000 to class representative American Sales and $40,000 to class representative Meijer in recognition of the work they took in representing the class. The plaintiffs had sought larger incentive awards of $95,000 for American Sales and $75,000 to Meijer. American Sales filed the first complaint and litigated its case for a year before Meijer filed its own action.
There is another indirect purchaser class action involving a proposed $35 million settlement that is still pending before the court. The plaintiffs in that case are both consumers and third parties who paid for or reimbursed consumers' use of Flonase or its generic equivalents.
GSK also agreed to settle for $11 million claims from over 30 large commercial health insurers, and those insurers have agreed to give $1 million of their recovery in fees to the indirect purchaser class action counsel for “having created the benefits to be received by the SHPs (settling health plans) and/or under certain conditions for payment to the settlement class.”
' Amaris Elliott-Engel,
The Legal Intelligencer
'
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.