All time highs, all time closing highs, most on better than average volume, nearly every day for the past two weeks; yesterday we hit the century mark, triple digits where the stock is likely to split. Seems like time to look for some flies in the ointment.
My personal favorite is the R-ketoprufen scenario, that these huge potential market numbers never materialize because SEPR's improvements are marginal, at best. I think no one expects every candidate SEPR patents to make it all the way to the drug counter, everyone knows there will be failures as well as successes. And SEPR may have refined its strategy, carefully selecting from their many choices those drugs that are most promising, either clinically, or for the parent company's own patent or marketing situation. Still I wonder what would happen to the stock if a couple high-profile candidates fall by the wayside.
If legal worries are your thing, how about the ANDRX scenario? I don't believe it is strictly comparable, but Milberg Weiss is the type of nuisance law firm that pricks up their ears anytime money crosses the table and can always create at least the appearance of wrongdoing.
prnewswire.com Search "Andrx"
Milberg Weiss Commences Class Action Lawsuit Against Hoechst AG
NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jan. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- A class action lawsuit was filed today in Dickson County, Tennessee against Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft and Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., charging the companies with conspiring to keep any generic competitor to Hoechst's leading hypertension medication, Cardizem CD, from coming to market. The class of consumers on whose behalf the action was brought was also conditionally certified today.
The complaint alleges the defendants violated the Tennessee Trade Practices Act ("Antitrust Statute") and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. In addition to Tennessee purchasers who have paid for Cardizem CD since April 30, 1998, the complaint is also brought on behalf of purchasers in the states of Alabama, California, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, in light of the similar antitrust laws of those states. In addition, a class of the purchasers in all of these states, including Tennessee, was conditionally certified by Judge Robert Burch of the 23rd Judicial District at Charlotte, Tennessee.
The lawsuit is one of several which have been filed around the country against Andrx and Hoechst. However, unlike suits filed in other states, which were brought only for consumers in those states, this suit is also brought on behalf of consumers in states who have antitrust statutes similar to Tennessee's. These statutes allow consumers, who are defined by law as "indirect purchasers," to bring suit for violations of those states' antitrust laws.
Today's suit, charging violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act was filed on behalf of Larry Sizemore of Dickson County, Tennessee, by the law firms of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley of Nashville, Tennessee, and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP of Boca Raton, Florida.
The lawsuit charges that in exchange for a payment of $40 million per year from Hoechst, Andrx has entered into an agreement in restraint of trade and in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act with Hoechst not to sell its FDA approved generic version of Cardizem CD in the United States. The lawsuit alleges that the purpose of the conspiracy between Hoechst and Andrx was to prevent any generic Cardizem CD from reaching the United States market, depriving all purchasers, including hypertension and angina sufferers, of the ability to purchase the drug at fair prices, thereby enabling Hoechst to maintain their dominance over once-a-day diltiazem, which lets them fix the price of Cardizem CD without competition.
Generic drugs are invariably priced far below the branded drugs to which they are bioequivalent, the lawsuit explains. Typically, the introduction of a new generic product results in an immediate 30 percent drop in prices, and increasingly steeper discounts, as more companies market competing generics. The beneficiaries of this price competition are all purchasers along the distribution chain, all the way down to the consumers, who are able to buy the drugs they need at lower generic prices.
The lawsuit asks for compensatory and statutory damages in accordance with Tennessee law.
For more information you may contact either of the following law firms:
Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
George E. Barrett
Douglas S. Johnston, Jr.
217 Second Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
Telephone: 615-244-2202
E-mail: Tim.Miles@Nashville.com
|
