`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`HUMANA INC.
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 16-MD-2724
`
`HON. CYNTHIA M. RUFE
`
`Individual Case No.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC;
`ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC.;
`ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.;
`ALVOGEN, INC.
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC;
`APOTEX CORP.;
`ASCEND LABORATORIES, LLC;
`AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.;
`BAUSCH HEALTH AMERICAS, INC. F/K/A VALEANT
`PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
`BAUSCH HEALTH US, LLC F/K/A VALEANT
`PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
`FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.;
`GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA
`G&W LABORATORIES, INC.;
`HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. F/K/A WEST-
`WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.;
`IMPAX LABORATORIES, LLC F/K/A IMPAX
`LABORATORIES, INC.;
`LANNETT COMPANY, INC.;
`LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
`MYLAN INC.;
`MYLAN, N.V.;
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.;
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.;
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
`PERRIGO COMPANY PLC;
`PERRIGO NEW YORK, INC.;
`SANDOZ, INC.;
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.;
`TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.;
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; AND
`WOCKHARDT USA LLC
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`THE DRUGS SUBJECT TO THE CONSPIRACY .................................................................... 4
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`THE PARTIES .................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff ..................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Defendants ............................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Co-Conspirators .................................................................................................................... 17
`
`V.
`
`REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND .......................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Generic Drugs Should Provide Lower-Priced Options for Purchasers ....................... 18
`
`The Prescription Drug Market ........................................................................................... 20
`
`The Prescription Drug Distribution System ..................................................................... 21
`
`The Market for Generic Drugs is Highly Susceptible to Collusion .............................. 23
`
`VI.
`
`GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS OF THE CONSPIRACY ........................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Congress Launched an Investigation into Generic Price Hikes .................................... 26
`
`The DOJ Investigates Criminal Generic Drug Collusion .............................................. 27
`
`State Attorneys General Launch Their Own Investigation ............................................ 34
`
`VII. THE GENERIC DRUG MARKET .............................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`The Cozy Nature of the Industry and Opportunities for Collusion ............................. 37
`
`1.
`
`Trade Association Meetings and Conferences.................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`National Association of Chain Drug Stores .......................................... 40
`
`Generic Pharmaceutical Association ...................................................... 41
`
`Healthcare Distribution Management Association .............................. 43
`
`Efficient Collaborative Retail Marketing ............................................... 43
`
`Minnesota Multistate Contracting Pharmacy Alliance ......................... 44
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Healthcare Supply Chain Association .................................................... 44
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Industry Dinners and Private Meetings ............................................................... 46
`
`Personal Telephone Calls, E-Mails, and Text Message Communications ...... 48
`
`The Overarching Conspiracy Between Generic Drug Manufacturers—Playing Nice
`in the Sandbox ...................................................................................................................... 48
`
`Generic Drug Price Spikes Since 2013 .............................................................................. 56
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. THE CONSPIRACY ........................................................................................................................ 57
`
`
`
`Topical Drugs Conspiracy ................................................................................................... 59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the Topical Drugs Conspiracy ....................................................... 59
`
`The Early Days—Collusion From 2009 To Early 2012 ................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Key Relationships Among Generic Topical Manufacturers ............... 71
`
`Long-Standing Competitor Relationships Lead to Collusion. ............ 74
`
`G&W And Its Relationships.................................................................... 90
`
`Additional Collusive Relationships ......................................................... 94
`
`3.
`
`Focus On Price Increases Intensifies – Collusion From Late 2012 - 2016 .... 94
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shifts In The Market Foster Collusion .................................................. 94
`
`Post-Fougera Acquisition, Sandoz Sales Executives Feel Pressure To
`Demonstrate Their Value ......................................................................... 96
`
`Key Relationships Emerge And Existing Relationships Strengthen . 97
`
`4.
`
`Taro Emerges As A Leader Among Generic Topical Manufacturers ......... 105
`
`
`
`
`
`Increased Focus On Fair Share And Price Increases ........................ 105
`
`Building Upon Early Successes—Taro's Continued Collusion Over
`The Ensuing Years ................................................................................. 123
`
`5.
`
`Sandoz And Its Other Relationships ................................................................ 130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Collusion Between Sandoz And Perrigo ............................................. 132
`
`Collusion Between Sandoz And Glenmark ........................................ 147
`
`Collusion Between Sandoz And Aurobindo ...................................... 160
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Collusion Between Sandoz and non-defendant Rising ..................... 168
`
`6.
`
`G&W And Its Other Relationships .................................................................. 169
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Collusion Between G&W And Perrigo ............................................... 172
`
`Collusion Between G&W And Actavis ............................................... 178
`
`Collusion Between G&W And Glenmark .......................................... 186
`
`Collusion Between G&W And Lupin ................................................. 192
`
`
`
`The Defendants' Profitability Increases Dramatically As A Result Of Collusive
`Conduct ............................................................................................................................... 196
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Taro And Perrigo's Profits Increased Over 1300% From 2008 To Early 2016
` ................................................................................................................................ 197
`
`
`
`
`
`Taro .......................................................................................................... 197
`
`Perrigo ...................................................................................................... 199
`
`Other Defendants' Revenues And Profits Also Multiply From 2008 To Early
`2016 ........................................................................................................................ 200
`
`
`
`Other Subject Drugs ......................................................................................................... 202
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Ammonium Lactate ............................................................................................. 202
`
`Atropine Sulfate Ophthalmic Solution ............................................................. 203
`
`Carisoprodol tablets ............................................................................................. 204
`
`Exemestane tablets .............................................................................................. 205
`
`Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray .................................................................. 206
`
`Hydrocodone Acetaminophen tablets .............................................................. 207
`
`Latanoprost ophthalmic solution ...................................................................... 208
`
`Neomycin/Polymyxin/Hydrocortisone ........................................................... 215
`
`Nystatin Triamcinolone cream and ointment .................................................. 216
`
`Oxycodone HCL oral solution and tablets ...................................................... 225
`
`Silver Sulfadiazine cream .................................................................................... 227
`
`Tobramycin Dexamethasone ............................................................................. 228
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`13.
`
`Trazodone HCL ................................................................................................... 229
`
`HUMANA’S PURCHASES AND ANTITRUST INJURY ..................................................... 230
`
`INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE ........................................................................... 230
`
`TOLLING AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT .......................................................... 231
`
`XII. DISCOVERY WILL ESTABLISH THE FULL SCOPE OF THE CONSPIRACY .......... 232
`
`XIII. CAUSES OF ACTION .................................................................................................................. 233
`
`XIV. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT .................................................................................................... 426
`
`XV.
`
`JURY DEMAND ............................................................................................................................. 427
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Plaintiff Humana Inc. (“Humana”) files this Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants
`
`Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals,
`
`LLC, Alvogen, Inc., Apotex Corp., Ascend Laboratories, LLC, Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`Bausch Health Americas, Inc. f/k/a Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Bausch Health US,
`
`LLC f/k/a Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Glenmark
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, G&W Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-
`
`Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Impax Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Impax Laboratories, Inc., Lannett
`
`Company, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan, Inc., Mylan, N.V., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Perrigo Company, plc, Perrigo New
`
`York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,
`
`Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Wockhardt USA LLC,
`
`(collectively, the "Defendants") and alleges based on personal knowledge as to the facts pertaining to
`
`it and information made public during ongoing government investigations of Defendants and other
`
`generic drug companies, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`
`
`Humana brings this action to recover damages it incurred from egregious
`
`overcharges it paid for certain widely-used generic drugs, arising from a far-reaching conspiracy
`
`among Defendants and others to blatantly fix the price of such drugs. This conspiracy increased the
`
`Defendants’ profits, and that of others working with them, at the expense of Humana, a private
`
`health benefit provider, as well as consumers and the government.
`
`
`
`In the pharmaceutical industry, generic drug entry predictably and typically results in
`
`increased price competition, which reduces the price of drugs for wholesalers, retailers, consumers,
`
`and third-party payers (“TPPs”) like Humana. Defendants here, however, along with other generic
`
`drug manufacturers, conspired to manipulate the relevant markets, allocate these markets amongst
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`themselves, and obstruct generic competition in an ongoing scheme to fix, increase, stabilize, and/or
`
`maintain the price of the drugs identified in Section II below (the “Subject Drugs”). The
`
`Defendants’ scheme continues to affect the generic drug markets for the Subject Drugs. While this
`
`Complaint alleges facts as to the Subject Drugs, this scheme and conspiracy extends to other generic
`
`drugs, including those that are the subject of Humana’s Second Amended Complaint, as may be
`
`further amended, in Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-03299-CMR, as well as
`
`Humana’s Complaint, as may be further amended, in Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, No.
`
`2019-cv-04862-CMR.
`
`
`
`Defendants orchestrated their conspiracy through secret communications and
`
`meetings, both at private and public events, like trade association meetings held by the Generic
`
`Pharmaceutical Association (“GPhA”) (n/k/a Association for Accessible Medicines), the Healthcare
`
`Distribution Management Association (“HDMA”) (n/k/a Healthcare Distribution Alliance), the
`
`Efficient Collaborative Retail Marketing organization (“ECRM”), the Minnesota Multistate
`
`Contracting Alliance for Pharmacy (“MMCAP”), and the Healthcare Supply Chain Association
`
`(“HSCA”), among others.
`
`
`
`The conspiracy, which infected the entire generic marketplace, was designed to evade
`
`detection. Pursuant to a “fair share” scheme, Defendants predetermined market share, fixed prices,
`
`and rigged bids on the Subject Drugs listed below, as well as additional drugs. This fair share
`
`understanding was often referred to by Defendants as the “rules of engagement” for the generic
`
`drug industry and permeated every segment of the industry. The modus operandi was to avoid
`
`competition among generic manufacturers that would normally result in significant price erosion and
`
`significant savings for purchasers, particularly insurers—like Humana—responsible for paying the
`
`bulk of the prescription drug costs in the United States. This overarching conspiracy, effectuated by
`
`a series of drug-specific conspiracies, thwarted competition across the generic drug industry:
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Predictably, the results of the conspiracy were severe. The prices of generic drugs
`
`skyrocketed at unprecedented rates, some by more than 1000%.
`
`
`
`These price increases are consistent with Medicare Part D “extraordinary” price
`
`increases found by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) for some of the Subject Drugs,
`
`specifically Atropine Sulfate, Carisoprodol, Methazolamide, Oxycodone HCL, and Promethazine
`
`HCL.1
`
`
`
`Defendants routinely and systematically communicated with one another to
`
`determine and agree on how much market share, and which customers, each conspirator was
`
`entitled to. They effectuated their market allocation by either refusing to bid for particular customers
`
`or providing outrageously high cover bids. This created an artificial equilibrium that enabled the
`
`conspirators to then collectively raise and/or maintain prices for a particular generic drug.
`
`
`
`Defendants understood and acted upon an underlying code of conduct widespread
`
`in the generic drug industry: any time a competitor enters a particular drug market, it can contact its
`
`competitors and allocate the market according to a generally agreed-upon standard of “fair share” in
`
`order to avoid competing and keep prices high. While different drugs may involve different
`
`competitors, this understanding remains constant and is the backbone of the industry wide
`
`conspiracy.
`
`
`
`The market for each of the Subject Drugs was small enough to foster collusion, but
`
`still large enough that prices should have remained at their historical, near marginal cost
`
`levels. Defendants overcame this obstacle and produced extraordinary price increases, as reflected in
`
`industry-wide data, by engaging in a concerted effort to grow their conspiracy and dominate the
`
`market for the Subject Drugs.
`
`
`1 Generic Drugs Under Medicare: Part D Generic Drug Prices Declined Overall, but Some Had
`Extraordinary Price Increases, GAO-16-706 (August 2016) (“the GAO Report”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`This industry-wide data is consistent with the substantial price increases Humana
`
`suffered for the Subject Drugs.
`
`
`
`Defendants knew their conduct was unlawful. They limited their communications to
`
`in-person meetings, or mobile phone calls, to avoid creating a record of their conduct. When
`
`communications were reduced to writing or text messages, Defendants often destroyed the evidence
`
`of those communications.
`
`
`
`Executives and others at the highest levels in many of Defendant companies and
`
`other companies not named as Defendants, including among others, Ara Aprahamian
`
`(Actavis/Watson, Sun/Taro), Mitchell Blashinsky (Glenmark, Sun/Taro), Douglas Boothe (Actavis,
`
`Perrigo), James (Jim) Grauso (Aurobindo, Glenmark, G&W), Walter Kaczmarek (Fougera,
`
`Mallinckrodt), Armando Kellum (Fougera/Sandoz), Kurt Orlofsky (G&W), Michael Perfetto
`
`(Actavis, Sun/Taro), Erika Vogel-Baylor (G&W), and John Wesolowski (Perrigo), among others,
`
`conceived, directed, and ultimately benefitted from these schemes.
`
`
`
`This scheme to fix and maintain prices, allocate markets, and otherwise stifle
`
`competition caused, and continues to cause, significant harm to the United States healthcare system.
`
`Defendants’ scheme violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and various state antitrust
`
`and unfair competition laws, as alleged herein. As a result of the conspiracy, Humana paid
`
`substantially inflated and anticompetitive prices for generic pharmaceutical drugs, and Defendants
`
`illegally profited as a result.
`
`
`
`Humana seeks treble damages and injunctive relief on account of Defendants’
`
`unlawful scheme to fix, maintain, and stabilize prices for the Subject Drugs.
`
`II.
`
`THE DRUGS SUBJECT TO THE CONSPIRACY
`
`
`
`Ammonium Lactate. Ammonium lactate is a topical medication used to treat dry or
`
`scaly skin and ichithyosis vulgaris, a hereditary dry skin condition.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Atropine Sulfate. Atropine sulfate is an antimuscarinic agent used to treat
`
`bradycardia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Calcipotriene. Calcipotriene is a topical form of Vitamin D used to treat psoriasis.
`
`Calcipotriene/Betamethasone Dipropionate. Calcipotriene betamethasone
`
`dipropionate is a combination topical medication consisting of calcipotriene as described above and
`
`a topical corticosteroid used to treat psoriasis.
`
`
`
`Carbidopa/Levodopa. Carbidopa levodopa is a combination of carbidopa, a
`
`decarboxylase inhibitor, and levodopa, a central nervous system agent that causes the production of
`
`dopamine used to treat Parkinson’s disease and other conditions that cause symptoms similar to
`
`those of Parkinson’s disease.
`
`
`
`Carisoprodol. Carisoprodol is a muscle relaxer used to treat skeletal muscle injuries
`
`and conditions.
`
`
`
`Cefpodoxime Proxetil. Cefpodoxime proxetil is used to treat a variety of bacterial
`
`infections.
`
`
`
`Danazol. Danazol is an androgen used to treat endometriosis, fibrocystic breast
`
`disease, and hereditary angioedema.
`
`
`
`Desoximetasone. Desoximetasone is a topical medication used to treat a variety of
`
`skin conditions including eczema, dermatitis, allergies, and rash.
`
`
`
`Erythromycin Base Ethyl Alcohol. Erythromycin base ethyl alcohol is a topical
`
`antibiotic medication combined with alcohol to dry oils from the skin used to treat acne.
`
`
`
`Ethambutol HCL. Ethambutol hydrochloride is an antibiotic used to treat
`
`tuberculosis. It is included on the World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) List of Essential
`
`Medicines.
`
`
`
`Exemestane. Exemestane is an aromatase inhibitor used to treat breast cancer.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Fluticasone Propionate. Fluticasone propionate is a topical corticosteroid used to
`
`treat a variety of skin conditions including eczema, psoriasis, allergies, and rash.
`
`
`
`Hydrocodone Acetaminophen. Hydrocodone acetaminophen is a combination
`
`medication consisting of an opioid and non-opioid used to treat moderate to severe pain
`
`
`
`Hydrocortisone Acetate. Hydrocortisone acetate is a topical corticosteroid. In rectal
`
`suppository form, it is used to treat hemorrhoids and itching and swelling in the rectum and anus.
`
`
`
`Latanoprost. Latanoprost is a prostaglandin analog used to treat glaucoma and ocular
`
`hypertension. It is included on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines.
`
` Methazolamide. Methazolamide is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor used to treat
`
`glaucoma.
`
` Methyldopa. Methyldopa is an antihypertensive used to treat high blood pressure. It
`
`is included on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines.
`
` Mometasone Furoate. Mometasone furoate is a topical corticosteroid used to treat a
`
`variety of skin conditions including eczema, psoriasis, allergies, and rash.
`
`
`
`Nafcillin Sodium. Nafcillin sodium is an antibiotic used to treat staphylococci and
`
`other bacterial infections.
`
`
`
`Neomycin/Polymyxin/Hydrocortisone. Neomycin polymyxin hydrocortisone is a
`
`combination medication consisting of two antibiotics and a corticosteroid used to treat outer ear
`
`infections caused by bacteria.
`
`
`
`Nystatin/Triamcinolone. Nystatin triamcinolone is a combination topical drug
`
`consisting of nystatin, an antifungal medication, and triamcinolone, an anti-inflammatory
`
`corticosteroid. It is used to treat fungal skin infections.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
` Ondansetron. Ondansetron is used to prevent nausea and vomiting that may be
`
`caused by surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment. It is included on the WHO’s List of
`
`Essential Medicines.
`
` Oxacillin Sodium. Oxacillin sodium is an antibiotic used to treat staphylococci and
`
`other bacterial infections.
`
` Oxycodone HCL. Oxycodone hydrochloride is an opioid used to treat moderate to
`
`severe pain.
`
`
`
`Promethazine HCL. Promethazine hydrochloride is an antihistamine used to treat
`
`allergy symptoms, nausea, and vomiting caused by a reaction to anesthesia or motion sickness.
`
`
`
`Silver Sulfadiazine. Silver sulfadiazine is a topical antibiotic used to prevent and treat
`
`infections of burns. It is included on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines.
`
`Tacrolimus. Tacrolimus is a topical calcineurin inhibitor used to treat eczema.
`
`Terconazole. Terconazole is a topical antifungal medication used to treat yeast
`
`
`
`
`
`infections.
`
`
`
`Tobramycin Dexamethasone. Tobramycin dexamethasone is a combination
`
`medication consisting of an antibiotic and a corticosteroid used to treat bacterial infections in the
`
`eye.
`
`
`
`Trazodone HCL. Trazodone hydrochloride is a tetracyclic antidepressant used to
`
`treat depression and anxiety disorders.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, and
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. Humana asserts claims for relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. This Court has jurisdiction over the
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`state law claims alleged in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the state law claims are so
`
`related to the federal antitrust claims as to form part of the same case or controversy.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant
`
`transacted business throughout the United States (including in this District), sold and distributed one
`
`or more of the Subject Drugs throughout the United States (including in this District), has registered
`
`agents in the United States (including in this District), may be found in the United States (including
`
`in this District), engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to artificially increase prices for one or more of
`
`the Subject Drugs that was directed at and had the intended effect of causing injury to persons
`
`residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States (including in this District),
`
`and is otherwise subject to the service of process provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 22.
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 22 and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(b)-(d). Defendants transact business within this District, have agents and can be found in
`
`this District, and the relevant interstate trade and commerce is carried out, in substantial part, in this
`
`District.
`
`
`
`Defendants sold and distributed generic pharmaceuticals in a continuous and
`
`uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce, which included sales of the Subject Drugs in the United
`
`States (including in this District). Defendants’ conduct had a direct, substantial, and reasonably
`
`foreseeable effect on interstate commerce in the United States (including in this District).
`
`IV.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Humana Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered at 500 West Main
`
`Street, Louisville, Kentucky. Humana is publicly traded under the NYSE symbol “HUM.”
`
`
`
`Humana is the parent company, and assignee of the claims, of subsidiaries and
`
`affiliates that provide, inter alia: (1) Medicare benefits, through contracts with the Centers for
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), for Medicare beneficiaries through a variety of Medicare
`
`Advantage plans offered under Part C of Medicare, or prescription drug benefits under Part D of
`
`Medicare; and (2) private commercial health insurance plan benefits that cover the medical expenses
`
`incurred by plan beneficiaries on an individual or group basis. Humana’s subsidiaries provide these
`
`benefits to beneficiaries in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Humana is the
`
`second largest Medicare Advantage Organization in the United States. These assignor subsidiaries
`
`and/or affiliates include: Arcadian Health Plan, Inc., CarePlus Health Plans, Inc., Cariten Health
`
`Plan Inc., Cariten Insurance Company, CHA HMO, Inc., CompBenefits Insurance Company,
`
`Emphesys Insurance Company, Health Value Management, Inc., dba ChoiceCare Network,
`
`Humana AdvantageCare Plan, Inc., Humana Behavioral Health, Inc., Humana Benefit Plan of
`
`Illinois, Inc., Humana Employers Health Plan of Georgia, Inc., Humana Health Benefit Plan of
`
`Louisiana, Inc., Humana Health Company of New York, Inc., Humana Health Insurance Company
`
`of Florida, Inc., Humana Health Plan of California, Inc., Humana Health Plan of Ohio, Inc.,
`
`Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., Humana Health Plans of Puerto Rico, Inc., Humana Health
`
`Plan, Inc., Humana Insurance Company, Humana Insurance Company of Kentucky, Humana
`
`Insurance Company of New York, Humana Insurance of Puerto Rico, Inc., Humana Medical Plan
`
`of Pennsylvania, Inc., Humana Medical Plan of Utah, Inc., Humana Medical Plan, Inc., Humana
`
`Regional Health Plan, Inc., Humana Wisconsin Health Organization Insurance Corporation and
`
`M.D. Care, Inc. Humana’s subsidiaries and affiliates expressly have assigned the claims pleaded
`
`herein to Humana.
`
`
`
`Humana is also the parent and assignee of claims of its subsidiary Humana
`
`Pharmacy, Inc. f/k/a Rightsource (“HPI”). HPI buys prescription drugs directly from
`
`manufacturers and wholesalers and dispenses them to Humana’s benefits plan members on a mail-
`
`order and retail pharmacy basis, pursuant to members’ doctors’ prescriptions. HPI has purchased
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`the numerous of the Subject Drugs directly from Defendants pursuant to various contractual
`
`agreements.
`
`
`
`Humana, either directly or through its health plan subsidiaries, insures and
`
`administers health plan benefits for its members and group customers, including self-funded group
`
`customers that contract with Humana to administer claims on their behalf and pursue recoveries
`
`related to those claims. Many of these health plan benefits provide members with prescription drug
`
`coverage under which claims for drugs manufactured by Defendants were submitted and paid.
`
`Humana is pursuing recovery related to those claims.
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendant Actavis Holdco US, Inc. (“Actavis Holdco”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. In March 2015, Actavis plc, the then-
`
`parent company of Defendants Actavis Elizabeth, LLC and Actavis Pharma, Inc., merged with
`
`Allergan, Inc. and changed its name to Allergan plc (“Allergan”). In August 2016, Teva
`
`Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Israeli parent company of Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals
`
`USA, Inc., purchased Allergan’s generics business, which included Defendants Actavis Elizabeth
`
`and Actavis Pharma, Inc. The assets and liabilities of Allergan’s generics business were transferred to
`
`the newly-formed Actavis Holdco. Actavis Holdco is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`Defendant Actavis Elizabeth, LLC (“Actavis Elizabeth”) is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business in Elizabeth, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Actavis Holdco and is a research and development and manufacturing entity for the
`
`Actavis generics operations.
`
`
`
`Defendant Actavis Pharma, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Parsippany, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actavis Holdco and is a
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`principal operating company in the U.S. for Teva’s generic products acquired from Allergan plc. It
`
`manufactures, markets, and/or distributes generic pharmaceuticals.
`
`
`
`Actavis Holdco, Actavis Elizabeth, and Actavis Pharma, Inc. are collectively referred
`
`to herein as “Actavis.” At all times relevant to the Complaint, Actavis marketed and sold one or
`
`more of the Subject Drugs in this District and throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`Defendant Alvogen, Inc. (“Alvogen”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal
`
`place of business in Pine Brook, New Jersey. It is a privately held company that was founded in 2009
`
`by a former CEO of Actavis. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Alvogen marketed and sold one
`
`or more of the Subject Drugs in this District and throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Bridgewater, New Jersey. At all times relevant to the
`
`Complaint, Amneal marketed and sold one or more of the Subject Drugs in this District and
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`Defendant Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Weston, Florida. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Apotex marketed and sold
`
`one or more of the Subject Drugs in this District and throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`Defendant Ascend Laboratories, LLC (“Ascend”) is a New Jersey limited liability
`
`company with a principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. At all times relevant to the
`
`Complaint, Ascend marketed and sold one or more of the Subject Drugs in this District and
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`
`
`Defendant Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., (“Aurobindo”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Dayton, New Jersey. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
`
`Aurobindo marketed and sold one or more of the Subject Drugs in this District and throughout the
`
`United States.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Defendant Bausch Health Americas, Inc. f/k/a Valeant Pharmaceuticals
`
`International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its pr