About a combination of factors hurting them in the US, when most leading Indian pharmaceutical companies complain, including cost erosion following increased competition, there is currently another dimension to worry about: An official statement issued by the office of the lawyer general of the state of Connecticut in the US says, the lawyer general led 45 different lawyers of the generic drug industry general participating in a far ranging multistate antitrust investigation in approaching the federal court for permission to file a new complaint in the states pending lawsuit that increases the quantity of generic drug manufacturer defendants from six to 18 in the case and the quantity of drugs at issue in the litigation from two to 15. It includes some of the pharmaceutical companies like Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Glenmark and Aurobindo.
It additionally brings up that “for the first time, at two generic drug companies who are claimed to have occupied with the illegal conduct the states are also suing senior executives”
“The expanded complaint names two defendants, Rajiv Malik, president and executive director of Mylan N.V., which is the parent company of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Satish Mehta, the CEO and managing director of Emcure Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., which is the parent company of Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” But the companies appear to have their own arguments.
Mylan for example, in a press release, says: “We have been examining these claims altogether and have discovered no evidence of price-fixing with respect to Mylan or its employees. Our review of the Connecticut Attorney General’s press release supporting the complaint does not change our perspectives.
We have asked to share with us what data with the various attorneys general leading this case they believe supports these new claims and, to date, they have not done as such. Mylan has profound confidence in the integrity of its President, Rajiv Malik, and stands behind him completely.
To defend this case vigorously Mylan and Rajiv Malik both expect, and we look forward to the chance to present a full defense.”
While some of the companies, Business Today reached, did not wish to remark, each one of those named should research regarding why they figure in the list.
In fact, one of them stated, it was not another development and was an old issue that companies have been trying to determine. In any case, at that point, if there are serious lapses then, there might be fine that may get imposed.
However, if there are a few, who don’t see any fault from their side then, they have to review why their names figures and how the internal and external communication systems should be redesigned to match their stated code of business ethics. For the moment, it is an added concern that they have to address.