Client Login Portal
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    Labaton Sucharow
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Contact Us
    • Knowledge Network
    • Client Login
    • Search
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    Labaton Sucharow
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
      • The Liaison
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars

    Ruling Signals Non-Cash Deals Won’t Evade Actavis

    Law360
    February 23, 2016

    Gregory Asciolla comments on drug pay-for-delay case settlement

    According to the judge on the case, “a cash-only rule would give drug companies “carte blanche to negotiate anti-competitive settlements” structured as nonmonetary payments.

    Gregory Asciolla, co-chair of Labaton Sucharow LLP’s Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice, said he agreed that there are many unsettled questions about how to establish a large payment. There is no clear threshold for how big the payment must be, and estimating the value of a noncash settlement brings additional complications, he said.

    “How do you value fees from a co-promotion?” Asciolla said. “How do you value 180 days of exclusivity when the generic finally does enter the market over any other entrants that aren’t going to get a license? There’s going to be a lot of interesting issues out there that are going to get litigated in this area.”

    Although the First Circuit opinion did not resolve these questions, it did provide some clues about how lower courts in the circuit should assess allegations about the value of reverse settlements, Asciolla said. The panel stressed that Twombly did not impose a heightened fact pleading standard, meaning that pay-for-delay plaintiffs shouldn’t need to state the deal’s value “with a high degree of certainty or precision” at the pleading stage, he said.

    Useful Links

    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Center

    Our Locations

    footer-list-map_icon New York
    140 Broadway
    New York, NY 10005
    212-907-0700

    footer-list-map_icon Delaware
    222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    302-573-2540

    Useful Links

    footer-list-map_icon Washington, D.C.
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20036
    212-907-0700

    Stay Connected

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    Labaton Sucharow
    • Attorney Advertising Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Transparency in Coverage Rule
    • labaton.com
    • Labaton Sucharow All Rights Reserved 2023

    Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

    The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should not take action based upon this information without consulting legal counsel. This site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon any single source of information, including advertising on this website. You may ask us to send you further information about us, and we urge you to review other sources of information about us.