RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:What happens if question...meetoo or anyone elseLegal cases are not decided by misinformation in the media. It was not a Canadian firm that imposed the impugned price hikes, for the most part. The Canadian firm mentioned is merely a successor to the one or ones that did. That distinction will not be lost on the regulators, and, if it is, the Court of Appeal will correct them.
But they have a hurdle to overcome before it ever gets to that, namely, proving that CXR, or the predecessors in title, actually enjoyed a dominant position in the market, to the extent that they could have controlled prices. The regulator can't do that. Why do you think the prosecutions have not progressed? The investigation begins in October 2016, and suddenly it is not a priority or is moved to the slow track (whatever that means)? Doesn't sound like a strong case to me.
Just to be clear, the reason why the UK had a policy of regulating the prices of only patented drugs, and not those off-patent (i.e., generics), is that the generic market was perceived, and legally is, open to full competition. The belief was that, in the case of generics, the market would take care of that, as it more or less does, subject to timing differences in some cases. In the case of patented drugs, the regulation is required as a matter of public policy, to ensure that the monopoly provided by the patent is not abused.
Again, I am not defending the predecessors of CXR, because I think that they adopted a stupid business strategy, and they did it with vigour. Had they been less aggressive in the price hikes, they could have flown under the radar and continued to make good profits. It's the extremity of what they did that brought all the attention upon them. At the end of the day, however, they simply named their price and the buyer bought. There was no deception and no undue compulsion. The buyer was at all times free to buy elsewhere, as it now does (to CXR's chagrin).