On February 1, 2002, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia signed an order in the matter of In re: Lorazepam and Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1290, Case Nos. 1:99-CV-01802 and 1:01-CV-00159, finally approving settlements of two antitrust class actions filed on behalf third-party payors who overpaid for two anti-anxiety drugs from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999. The settlements established one fund of $25.3 million payable to third-party payors in nineteen states where laws allow indirect purchasers to sue for antitrust damages.. A second settlement fund of $10.1 million was also created for distributions to third-party payors in thirty-one states where the law makes it more difficult for persons or entities to sue for antitrust violations if they did not deal directly with the wrongdoer.

Third-party payors who are members of one or both of the settlement classes and who timely filed valid claims will receive a distribution from the settlement funds based on their proportionate share of the funds. The deadline for third-party payors to file a claim expired on December 31, 2001. [Additional information can be obtained about this matter at the following internet website: www.TPPsettlement.com].

Bernard Persky and Hollis Salzman, the Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP attorneys who spearheaded the litigation, served as co-lead counsel for the third-party payor plaintiffs in both class actions. These settlements cover insurers, union health and welfare funds and other third-party payors who paid for all or part of the costs of their member's or insured's prescriptions of generic Lorazepam and Clorazepate. The class actions involve claims that, in the Fall of 1997, Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together "Mylan"), Cambrex Corporation, Profarmaco S.r.l. and Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc. entered into unlawful agreements that allowed Mylan to obtain control of the supply of the necessary ingredients required to manufacture tablets of generic Lorazepam and generic Clorazepate, thereby denying competing generic manufacturers access to these ingredients and allowing Mylan to drastically increase the prices for these needed drugs. The alleged illegal agreements to monopolize the markets for these drugs resulted in price increases ranging from 1,900 to 3,000 percent.

During the course of the litigation, Goodkind Labaton and affiliated counsel participated in the review of hundreds of thousands pages of documents produced by defendants and non-party entities. Counsel undertook an extensive and painstaking effort to meticulously review, evaluate and analyze these documents. Using the results from their review of document discovery, counsel created, maintained and updated a comprehensive and extremely useful computerized discovery database. This computerized database enabled counsel to efficiently and effectively access and use the fruits of their massive discovery review efforts during the entire course of the litigation, especially during preparation for the more than 70 depositions which were taken. These efforts of counsel were crucial to obtaining the favorable settlements in this case.

In addition, Goodkind Labaton was co-lead counsel in related antitrust litigation on behalf of consumers brought in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general of thirty-two states. This litigation was also settled at the same time, with Mylan paying $100 million which will be used to reimburse consumers and state agencies in all fifty states and the District of Columbia for a portion of any overcharge they may have incurred when purchasing either or both drugs. Judge Hogan also finally approved this settlement on February 1, 2002. The deadline for consumers to file a claim for this settlement expired on September 31, 2001.

The total amount of the settlements, including attorneys' fees is in excess of $147 million. In approving these settlements, Judge Hogan complimented the efforts of Goodkind Labaton and other plaintiffs’ counsel, recognizing them as "experienced antitrust litigators" and commenting positively about their efforts in a "lengthy and complex antitrust case, involving multiple jurisdictions, extensive investigation and discovery, coordination, and negotiations."