>Hypodermic Needles
Date Filed: May 10, 2006
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: New Jersey
In May 2006, HBSS filed an antitrust lawsuit against Becton Dickinson & Company, a manufacturer of hypodermic needles for consumer and clinical use. HBSS was subsequently appointed to the executive committee of counsel representing a class of wholesalers and other direct purchasers of Becton Dickinson's products in MDL No. 05-1602: In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.
According to the lawsuit, Becton Dickinson's anticompetitive practices included imposing market share purchase requirements on purchasers, bundling goods for exclusionary purposes, conspiring with group purchasing organizations to impose exclusionary contracts, and conspiring with other established manufacturers to impose certain rebate penalties. The net effect of the defendant's conduct has been to foreclose the manufacturers of "generic" hypodermic needles from a substantial part of the relevant market, and from driving down prices in the market for hypodermic needles.
In June 2007, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Since that time, the case has been in discovery.
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: New Jersey
In May 2006, HBSS filed an antitrust lawsuit against Becton Dickinson & Company, a manufacturer of hypodermic needles for consumer and clinical use. HBSS was subsequently appointed to the executive committee of counsel representing a class of wholesalers and other direct purchasers of Becton Dickinson's products in MDL No. 05-1602: In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.
According to the lawsuit, Becton Dickinson's anticompetitive practices included imposing market share purchase requirements on purchasers, bundling goods for exclusionary purposes, conspiring with group purchasing organizations to impose exclusionary contracts, and conspiring with other established manufacturers to impose certain rebate penalties. The net effect of the defendant's conduct has been to foreclose the manufacturers of "generic" hypodermic needles from a substantial part of the relevant market, and from driving down prices in the market for hypodermic needles.
In June 2007, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Since that time, the case has been in discovery.
| SHARE: |
|
Cases and Investigations
| CONTACT US | CYCLING TEAM | INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS | FOLLOW US ONLINE: |
|
|
Sign Up For E-Mail Alerts