Case Law Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.

Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (83) Cited in (30) Related (1)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Philadelphia, and William O. Crutchlow, Edison, NJ, for plaintiff.

Allen S. Loney, Jr., Philadelphia, Steven M. Edwards, New York, NY, and Michael C. Moore, Dallas, TX, for defendant Bristol–Myers Squibb.

Jack Mentzer Stover, Harrisburg, for defendants Bristol–Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson.BEFORE: LEADBETTER, President Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge (P), and FEUDALE, Senior Judge.

OPINION re POST–TRIAL MOTIONS of the COMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA and BRISTOL–MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------+
I.     BACKGROUND                                                    1210
      A.    Opening                                                  1210
      B.    History                                                  1211
            1.    Average Wholesale Price—Origin & Evolution         1211
            2.    Plaintiff Agencies                                 1214
                a.    DPW/Pennsylvania Medicaid                     1214
                b.    Department of Aging/PACE                      1215
            3.    BMS                                                1216
      C.    Procedural History                                       1216
II.    BMS' CHALLENGE TO STATUTORY                                   1219
       INJUNCTION
      A.    Summary of BMS' Argument                                 1219
      B.    Sufficiency of Evidence                                  1220
            1.    Contentions                                        1220
            2.    Analysis                                           1220
      C.    Alleged Irreparable Harm to Others                       1223
            1.    Alleged Irreparable Harm to Innocent Third Parties 1223
                a.    Contentions                                   1223
                b.    Analysis                                      1224
                       i.   Waiver                                   1224
                       ii.  Failure of Proof                         1225
                       iii. Modification of Injunction               1225
                       iv.  Failure of Legal Support                 1226
            2.    Alleged Procedural Defect                          1228
                a.    Contentions                                   1228
                b.    Analysis                                      1228
            3.    Alleged Interference with Statutory/ Regulatory    1229
                  Schemes
                a.    Contentions                                   1229
                b.    Analysis                                      1230
            4.    Alleged Irreparable Harm to BMS                    1231
                a.    Contentions                                   1231
                b.    Analysis                                      1231
            5.    Alleged Commerce Clause Violation                  1233
                a.    Contentions                                   1233
                b.    Analysis                                      1233
            6.    Balancing the Harm                                 1235
                a.    Contentions                                   1235
                b.    Analysis                                      1235
      D.    Alleged Lack of Urgent Necessity                         1236
            1.    Alleged Inconsistency in the Decision              1236
                a.    Contentions                                   1236
                b.    Waiver                                        1236
                c.    Standard for Injunction under CPL             1236
                d.    Urgent Necessity                              1238
            2.    Alleged Lack of Ongoing Injury                     1243
                a.    Contentions                                   1243
                b.    Analysis                                      1244
            3.    Alleged Failure to Provide Meaningful Relief       1244
                a.    Contentions                                   1244
                b.    Analysis                                      1245
                       i.   Waiver                                   1245
                       ii.  AWP Confusion                            1245
                       iii. OIG Reports, Surveys and Price Audits    1249
                       iv.  AMPs and ASPs                            1249
                       v.   Conclusion                               1249
            4.    Alleged Harm Compensable by Monetary Damages       1250
                a.    Contentions                                   1250
                b.    Analysis                                      1250
      E.    Alleged Lack of Clear Right to Relief                    1251
            1.    Alleged Inconsistency with Jury Verdict            1251
                a.    Contentions                                   1251
                b.    Analysis                                      1252
            2.    Alleged Lack of Fraudulent or Deceptive Conduct    1255
                a.    Contentions                                   1255
                b.    Analysis                                      1255
            3.    Alleged Inconsistency of Decision with MDL 2007    1256
                  Opinion
                a.    Contentions                                   1256
                b.    Analysis                                      1257
            4.    Alleged Lack of Proof of Overpayment               1259
                a.    Contentions                                   1259
                b.    Analysis                                      1260
            5.    Alleged Lack of Proof of Spread Marketing          1261
                a.    Contentions                                   1261
                b.    Analysis                                      1261
III.   BMS' CHALLENGE TO STATUTORY                                   1262
       RESTORATION
      A.    Alleged Lack of Statutory Basis for Restoration          1262
            1.    Contentions                                        1262
            2.    Analysis                                           1263
      B.    Alleged Inconsistency with Dismissal of Unjust           1264
            Enrichment Claim
            1.    Contentions                                        1264
            2.    Analysis                                           1264
      C.    Alleged Absence of Overpayment                           1265
            1.    Contentions                                        1265
            2.    Analysis                                           1265
      D.    Alleged Flawed Damage Estimate                           1266
            1.    BMS Contentions                                    1266
                a.    Drugs Not in the Case                         1266
                b.    Challenge to “But For” Methodology            1266
                c.    Rebates                                       1266
            2.    Analysis                                           1267
                a.    Generally                                     1267
                b.    Drugs Not in the Case                         1267
                c.    Challenge to “But For” Methodology            1268
                d.    Rebates                                       1269
      E.    Alleged Inconsistency with Jury Verdict                  1269
            1.    Contentions                                        1269
            2.    Analysis                                           1269
      F.    Alleged Impropriety of Award in Suit on behalf of DPW    1270
            and PACE
            1.    Contentions                                        1270
            2.    Analysis                                           1271
IV.    OTHER EVIDENTIARY ISSUES                                      1273
V.     BMS' REQUEST FOR STAY                                         1273
      A.    Generally                                                1273
      B.    Likely to Prevail on Merits                              1273
      C.    Irreparable Injury without Stay                          1274
      D.    Stay Not Harm Other Parties                              1275
      E.    Stay Not Adversely Affect Public                         1275
      F.    Conclusion                                               1275
VI.    COMMONWEALTH'S CHALLENGE TO                                   1275
       VERDICT ON COMMON LAW CLAIMS
      A.    Standards for Analyzing Motions for JNOV and New Trial   1275
            Elements of Negligent Misrepresentation Claim/Section
      B.
...
5 cases
Document | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court – 2011
Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2018
Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp.
"...may consider whether the offending conduct is likely to reoccur absent the grant of an injunction. Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc. , 36 A.3d 1197, 1238-43 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (also noting that the CPL is modeled on the FTC Act), vacated on other grounds , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2020
Wash. Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Mallinckrodt Ard, Inc.
"...2007), aff'd , 582 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2009) ; Watson Labs., Inc. v. State , 241 So. 3d 573, 578 (Miss. 2018) ; Com. v. TAP Pharm. Prod., Inc. , 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), vacated on other grounds , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 (2014) ; State v. Abbott Labs. , 341 Wis.2d 510, 816 N.W.2d 1..."
Document | Pennsylvania Supreme Court – 2021
Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.
"...in order to succeed on their CPL claim. Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., 195 A.3d 930, 936 (Pa. Super. 2018). Applying Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc. , 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), rev'd on other grounds , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 (2014), the Superior Court held that the test for dece..."
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2013
Fazio v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
"...Court's continued interpretation of Section 201–2(4)(xxi) as requiring proof of common law fraud). See also Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (stating Commonwealth Court has adopted “deceptive” standard under post-amendment catchall section of ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2021
Two Opinions Broaden the Scope of Liability and Strip Defenses Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
"...award of treble damages would be consistent with, and in furtherance of, the remedial purposes of the UTPCPL.”). [15] Com. v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc., 36 A.3d 1197, 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (“in an action in the public interest under the catchall provision of the CPL, either there is no re..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court – 2011
Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2018
Pennsylvania v. Navient Corp.
"...may consider whether the offending conduct is likely to reoccur absent the grant of an injunction. Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc. , 36 A.3d 1197, 1238-43 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (also noting that the CPL is modeled on the FTC Act), vacated on other grounds , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2020
Wash. Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Mallinckrodt Ard, Inc.
"...2007), aff'd , 582 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2009) ; Watson Labs., Inc. v. State , 241 So. 3d 573, 578 (Miss. 2018) ; Com. v. TAP Pharm. Prod., Inc. , 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), vacated on other grounds , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 (2014) ; State v. Abbott Labs. , 341 Wis.2d 510, 816 N.W.2d 1..."
Document | Pennsylvania Supreme Court – 2021
Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.
"...in order to succeed on their CPL claim. Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., 195 A.3d 930, 936 (Pa. Super. 2018). Applying Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc. , 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), rev'd on other grounds , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 (2014), the Superior Court held that the test for dece..."
Document | Pennsylvania Superior Court – 2013
Fazio v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
"...Court's continued interpretation of Section 201–2(4)(xxi) as requiring proof of common law fraud). See also Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (stating Commonwealth Court has adopted “deceptive” standard under post-amendment catchall section of ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2021
Two Opinions Broaden the Scope of Liability and Strip Defenses Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
"...award of treble damages would be consistent with, and in furtherance of, the remedial purposes of the UTPCPL.”). [15] Com. v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc., 36 A.3d 1197, 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (“in an action in the public interest under the catchall provision of the CPL, either there is no re..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial