Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#071)
- Kressin Powers
- 3 days ago
- 7 min read
Week of July 27, 2026
Top Takeaways
Admissions Continue to Shape Generic Drug Litigation: The court's partial summary judgment against Teva in the generic pharmaceuticals MDL underscores the powerful effect of criminal and Rule 36 admissions, allowing plaintiffs to establish Sherman Act liability without a trial on the violation element.
Procedural Defenses Remain a Powerful Gatekeeper: Multiple courts dismissed antitrust claims on threshold grounds—including statutes of limitations, market power, and Noerr-Pennington immunity—reinforcing that many antitrust cases continue to turn on pleading and procedural issues before reaching the merits.
Pharmaceutical and Follow-On Litigation Remains Active: New reverse-payment allegations involving Rytary, additional sugar and fire truck follow-on cases, and new NCAA litigation reflect the continued expansion of antitrust suits into both established and emerging areas.
New Cases Filed
Value Drug Co. v. Amneal Pharms., Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2026): Value Drug file a putative class action against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Impax Laboratories, and Zydus alleging that defendants entered into reverse-payment settlements, no-authorized-generic commitments, authorized-generic licensing arrangements, and market-allocation agreements to maintain Impax’s monopoly and restrain competition in the market for brand and generic Rytary in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Impax settled Hatch-Waxman litigation with Actavis by providing an alleged 80-day no-authorized-generic commitment in exchange for delayed generic entry, then settled separate litigation with Zydus by granting it an authorized-generic license in exchange for abandoning a patent challenge that allegedly would have eliminated the first-filer exclusivity bottleneck and permitted earlier entry by multiple generic competitors. According to the complaint, these agreements maintained Impax’s monopoly, preserved an FDA approval bottleneck that delayed competing generic entry, reduced output, allocated the brand and generic markets, and enabled defendants to charge supracompetitive prices for both branded and generic Rytary, causing purchasers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges.
Hollywood Foreign Press Ass'n v. Penske (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2026): Hollywood Foreign Press Association filed suit against Jay Penske, Gregory Goeckner, Penske Media, and Golden Globe Foundation alleging that defendants orchestrated a boycott, fraudulent acquisition, exclusionary agreements, and vertical integration to monopolize and restrain competition in the markets for Hollywood Trade Publications, Secondary Awards, and For Your Consideration Advertising in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants used Penske’s control of entertainment trade publications, awards shows, awards data and prediction platforms, and the acquisition of the Golden Globes to exclude competing journalists and awards organizations, require or incentivize purchases of FYC advertising and other pay-to-play arrangements, suppress competing bids for the Golden Globes, and dismantle the Hollywood Foreign Press Association through allegedly fraudulent transactions and coordinated conduct. According to the complaint, defendants’ conduct excluded competitors from the alleged relevant markets, enabled supracompetitive pricing for FYC advertising, reduced output and competition in entertainment journalism and awards markets, foreclosed rival awards organizations and journalists, and entrenched Penske’s alleged monopoly power through control of awards, trade publications, advertising, and related services.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Mondelez Glob. LLC v. ASR Grp. Int'l, Inc. (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix prices for granulated sugar like in Olivares v. ASR Grp. Int'l (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2024)); McLane Co. v. ASR Grp. Int'l, Inc. (D. Minn. July 24, 2026) (same)
City of Scottsdale v. REV Grp. (D. Ariz. July 24, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to inflate the price of fire trucks like in City of La Crosse v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2025)); City of Eau Claire v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. July 27, 2026) (same)
Wiley v. NCAA (D. Nev. July 27, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))
Allison v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (W.D. Wis. July 30, 2026) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices of conventional fresh shell eggs like in King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2025)); Gutierrez Fam. LLC v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (W.D. Wis. July 30, 2026) (same)
Dispositive Orders and TROs
SS&C Techs. Holdings, Inc. v. D.E. Shaw & Co. (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2026): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging SS&C’s engaged in exclusionary licensing restrictions involving its Geneva portfolio accounting software and related hosting and maintenance services, the court granted SS&C’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims. The court reasoned that (a) DESCO’s exclusive-dealing and tying claims were time-barred because they were based on contractual restrictions imposed more than four years before the limitations period, and neither the alleged “overt acts” nor the speculative-damages doctrine restarted accrual, and (b) DESCO’s remaining de facto exclusive-dealing theory failed because, to the extent it rested on contractual provisions, it was untimely, and to the extent it rested on SS&C’s litigation conduct, it was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
Carroo v. Rutgers (D.N.J. July 24, 2026): In this case alleging that Rutgers unlawfully restrained competition by using a former student-athlete’s name, image, and likeness without compensation in violation of, among others, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the court granted Rutgers’s motion to dismiss because the claims were untimely. The court reasoned that (a) the complaint alleged that all anticompetitive conduct ended no later than May 2016, rendering the federal antitrust claims barred by the four-year statute of limitations, (b) the American Pipe doctrine did not toll the limitations period because the cited class action was filed after plaintiff’s antitrust claims had already expired, and (c) the continuing-violations doctrine did not apply because the complaint alleged no anticompetitive conduct within the limitations period that reaffirmed or continued the alleged earlier violations.
Zelikovsky v. Int’l Ass’n of Eating Disorder Pros.’ Found. (C.D. Ill. July 27, 2026): In this putative class action alleging an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of Sherman Act § 1 based on the International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals’ Foundation’s alleged practice of conditioning maintenance of eating-disorder board certification on the purchase of association membership and attendance at iaedp symposiums, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) although plaintiffs plausibly alleged a relevant market limited to professionally recognized eating-disorder certifications, their alternative “certification maintenance” aftermarket was legally deficient because initial certification and certification maintenance constituted a single product rather than separate markets, (b) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege market power because the complaint did not show that iaedp possessed sufficient power in the relevant certification market, relying instead on insufficient market-share allegations, conclusory barriers-to-entry assertions, an inapplicable Kodak “lock-in” theory, and inadequate direct evidence of market power, and (c) further amendment would be futile after five attempts to plead a viable claim.
In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2026): In this MDL alleging price-fixing of generic drugs, the court granted Humana’s motion for partial summary judgment on the violation element of its federal and related state antitrust claims against Teva as to pravastatin. The court reasoned that (a) Teva’s admissions in its deferred prosecution agreement and Rule 36 responses conclusively established that Teva agreed with competitors to refrain from submitting bids for pravastatin in order to increase and maintain prices, which constituted a per se violation of Section 1, (b) Teva could not avoid the effect of those admissions through contrary evidence or arguments because it had neither withdrawn nor amended its Rule 36 admissions, and (c) the same admissions established the violation element of the asserted state antitrust claims because those statutes are interpreted consistently with federal Sherman Act precedent regarding per se price-fixing and market-allocation agreements.
Wallis v. Holcomb Corp. (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2026): In this case alleging an unlawful tying arrangement and monopolization of property management services at Seascape Resort in violation of, among other things, the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the required substantial effect on interstate commerce because the complaint contained no factual allegations connecting the challenged conduct to interstate commerce, relying instead on assertions raised only in their opposition brief, and (b) plaintiffs also failed to plausibly allege a relevant market because their proposed geographic market was impermissibly limited to Seascape Resort despite allegations that competing rental management providers such as Airbnb and VRBO operated outside the resort.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Pro Slab, Inc. v. Argos USA, LLC (D.S.C. July 23, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing of Ready-Mix Concrete, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between plaintiffs and Argos USA and Argos Ready Mix. The court conditionally certified a settlement class of direct purchasers of ready-mix concrete from specified Argos plants between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2016, finding the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and within the range of possible approval and that Rule 23’s requirements were satisfied for settlement purposes. The court approved the proposed notice plan, appointed settlement class representatives, settlement class counsel, and Verita Global as settlement administrator, established procedures and deadlines for exclusions and objections, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for November 4, 2026.
In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litig. (W.D. Pa. July 23, 2026): In this class action alleging that manufacturers conspired to fix the prices of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate, the court granted preliminary approval of settlement agreements with BASF Corporation and Covestro LLC. The court preliminarily certified settlement classes of direct purchasers, finding the settlements the product of arm’s-length negotiations, within the range of possible approval, and fair, reasonable, and adequate for settlement purposes. The court approved a comprehensive notice and claims process, appointed co-lead settlement class counsel, Kroll as settlement administrator, and Endeavor Bank as escrow agent, and approved a pro rata allocation and distribution plan for the settlement funds. The court stayed the litigation as to the settling defendants pending final approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for December 7, 2026.
*** *** ***
If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:
This newsletter has been prepared by Kressin Powers LLC for educational and informational purposes only regarding selected recent legal developments and does not constitute advertising or solicitation. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their jurisdiction. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any jurisdiction in which Kressin Powers LLC lawyers are not authorized to practice. Confidential information should not be sent to Kressin Powers LLC without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.
Comments