Is the AZ deal with Ranbaxy legal?

[Anonymous]

Just wondering. Since Ranbaxy had a six month exclusive right to market a generic Nexium, how is it that a deal like this can go out so many years without another generic company applying for the now unused six month slot? Is this another scam like Barr Labs being bought off with generic tamox.... to not sell it as Zeneca (now AZ) reaped 10's of millions in extra profits then got caught? Again, another fishy deal by AZ that I hope gets the attention of Congress. This is just another money grab at the expense of taxpayers and insurance companies and should NOT be tolerated. Sell the generic or yield to someone that will. Period.
Reply With Quote

[Anonymous]

If Ranbaxy got any significant payment to settle this litigation the deal will be challenged by the FTC and the challenge will be successful, ie. the deal will be ivalidated and Ranbaxy will have nevertheless lost its 6 months exclusivity for a product selling in excess of $5 Billion.

There are at least two other parties challenging AZ patents and if one or both (or someone else) is successful in the patent litigation the exclusivity Ranbaxy would have had will be lost and the successfull other parties will be able to launch --probably long before Ranbaxy under its AZ deal.

Just wondering. Since Ranbaxy had a six month exclusive right to market a generic Nexium, how is it that a deal like this can go out so many years without another generic company applying for the now unused six month slot? Is this another scam like Barr Labs being bought off with generic tamox.... to not sell it as Zeneca (now AZ) reaped 10's of millions in extra profits then got caught? Again, another fishy deal by AZ that I hope gets the attention of Congress. This is just another money grab at the expense of taxpayers and insurance companies and should NOT be tolerated. Sell the generic or yield to someone that will. Period.
Reply With Quote

[Anonymous]

Even if there are reverse payments, the federal courts have ruled that they are legal. Settlements for cash or value are a perfectly legitimate means to settle a patent dispute. There cannot be a different standard for pharmaceuticals than there are for other industries.

[Anonymous]

Hey RK.....we get it. You're a cheerleader for the company. Do us all a favour, will ya......take your pom-poms and go do your routine for the powers that pull the strings attached to your sorry arse and potbelly, you head-bobbing puppet.

[Anonymous]

I suggest you do some legal research before you write. The FTC currently is agressively challenging para IV litigation settlements -- see for the example the recent lawsuit filed in Fed.Court against Cephalon wrt its settlement with Ranbaxy and several others. One federal appeals court has said that in certain limited circumstances some types of payments to settle para IV litigation may be legal but the courts and the FTC agree that payments that are much higher than any other value provided, eg. API supplies, are illegal. So, in fact, para IV litigation settlements are treated quite differently than other patent litigation settlements.

Even if there are reverse payments, the federal courts have ruled that they are legal. Settlements for cash or value are a perfectly legitimate means to settle a patent dispute. There cannot be a different standard for pharmaceuticals than there are for other industries.

[Anonymous]

Well, let me know when the FTC wins one of those suits will ya. Till then, as an investor, I'm not that worried.

[Anonymous]

As said initially whether the FTC wins will depend on the terms of the deal --so we will see.

If, however, you think now is a good time to be a Ranbaxy investor then there is not much more I can say. This is a company than has, and has had since at least 2005, serious FDA problems in the largest pharma market in the world and spent several hundred million dollars to acquire a company in Romania only to see its sales in Romania fall in 1Q08 compared to 1Q07.

I hope you have a diversified portfolio.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks that para IV litigation settlements involving large reverse payments always will survive should take a look at the BMS/Apotex deal involving generic Plavix.

That deal died and the BMS CEO got fired

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks that para IV litigation settlements involving large reverse payments always will survive should take a look at the BMS/Apotex deal involving generic Plavix.

That deal died and the BMS CEO got fired

This co.'s stock price is up 28% since current CEO was apointd in Janury 2006 and in same timeperiod the SENSEX (the Dow Jones industril avg. equal of India and Ranbxy is component of same) went up by > 150%. When mkt. is outperforming a co. by > 500% (28 versis 150%) and top mgmt is unchangd, you shud know tht this co. is traditnal famly-ownd biznes, unaffectd by any outside mkt condtions.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks that para IV litigation settlements involving large reverse payments always will survive should take a look at the BMS/Apotex deal involving generic Plavix.

That deal died and the BMS CEO got fired

The Plavix deal is not a good example as there was blatant and admitted illegal activity by BMS. Look at Barr settlements.

[Anonymous]

Teva now has taken a step that will trigger Ranbaxy's exclusivity and cause it to run and expire while Ranbaxy is contractually blocked from launching the product. Teva then will be free to lauch its product.

All this may take a couple of years but Teva should be able to launch its product long before the 2014 date for product lauch agreed to by Ranbaxy. Best case for Ranbaxy is to lauch soon after Teva does but Ranbaxy then would be launching without the 6 months exclusivity it has given up