RE:RE:RE:RE:Death march beginscg16 wrote: DK1958, I don't think Kapvay was a Covis drug.
Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (a division of Concordia Healthcare Inc.) has acquired Kapvay (clonidine), Orapred ODT (prednisolone), and Orapred OS (prednisolone) from fellow specialty pharmaco Shionogi Inc. It has also licensed exclusive rights to Shionogi’s Ulesfia (benzyl alcohol) for head lice.
cg16... you are right, I didn't check but I used it only to illustrate that they entered into an unlawful antitrust agreement ... and lumberferlong so stop pretending you are a securities lawyer. This is NOT the drug(s) in the DOJ investigation and I did not mean to imply that it was (I don't know what drug(s) are a part of the criiminal investigation) , it was used as an example of Concordia colluded with another companies (in this case Par, which is also mentioned in the DOJ investigation) to inflate generic pricing. They were found to be guilty, BTW, doesn't matter who they bought it from. I only cut and pasted part of the order, the decision on what Concordia was allowed to do was ordered October 2015 and was a few pages, but you can goggle it I guess if you want to see it.
CONCORDIA PHARMACEUTICALS ) INC., a corporation; ) CONCORDIA HEALTHCARE CORP., ) a corporation; )
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., ) a corporation; and )
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS,) INC., a corporation ) ___________________________________ )
COMPLAINT
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 41, et seq., and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”), having reason to believe that Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Concordia”), Concordia Healthcare Corp. (collectively “Concordia Entities”), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (collectively “Par”) have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues this Complaint stating its charges as follows:
Nature of the Case
1. This action challenges an agreement not to compete between Concordia and Par relating to generic equivalents of the prescription drug Kapvay. Until May 15, 2015, Concordia and Par were the only two firms permitted to market generic Kapvay. Rather than competing against one another, however, Concordia agreed not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay in exchange for a share of the revenues Par earns as the sole seller of generic Kapvay. This agreement not to compete likely resulted in higher prices for consumers.
DOCKET NOS. C-4553 and C-4554