In re: Suboxone Antitrust v.

In re: Suboxone Antitrust v.

The court held that even if the defendant argued the lawfulness of pricing conduct, class certification was not necessarily improper because the allegedly unlawful nonpricing conduct could be established through common evidence and thus satisfy the Rule 23 commonality requirement.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
In re: Suboxone Antitrust v.
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Indivior Inc. f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Appellee/plaintiff: Burlington Drug Co. Inc.; Appellee/plaintiff: Meijer Inc. and Meijer Distribution Inc.; Appellee/plaintiff: Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc.; Amicus Curiae: State of Wisconsin; Amicus Curiae: American Antitrust Institute
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
25 August 2020
Case Number
19-3640
Procedural Posture
Antitrust Multidistrict Litigation (mdl) / Appeal — Published Opinion Amended (order Amending Opinion)
Outcome
Published opinion amended by order (amendment to footnote 9); amendment does not change the filing date
Legal Topics
Class Certification, Commonality, Pricing Conduct, Nonpricing Conduct
Source Language
english
Antitrust Civil Procedure Class Actions Class Certification Commonality Pricing Conduct Nonpricing Conduct

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indivior Inc. f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Appellant/defendant

Burlington Drug Co. Inc.

Appellee/plaintiff

Meijer Inc. and Meijer Distribution Inc.

Appellee/plaintiff

Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc.

Appellee/plaintiff

State of Wisconsin

Amicus Curiae

American Antitrust Institute

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Antitrust Multidistrict Litigation (mdl) / Appeal — Published Opinion Amended (order Amending Opinion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the asserted lawfulness of pricing conduct renders class certification improper
  2. 2 Whether allegedly unlawful nonpricing conduct can be established via common evidence to satisfy Rule 23 commonality requirement
  3. 3 Whether amendment to the published opinion affects the filing date

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that even if the defendant argued the lawfulness of pricing conduct, class certification was not necessarily improper because the allegedly unlawful nonpricing conduct could be established through common evidence and thus satisfy the Rule 23 commonality requirement.

Court Disposition

Published opinion amended by order (amendment to footnote 9); amendment does not change the filing date

Orders

  • Amend the published Opinion filed July 28, 2020 as specified (footnote 9)
  • Confirm that the amendment does not change the date of filing, July 28, 2020