The local-pharmacy plaintiffs challenging the Pfizer-Wyeth merger in Northern California's federal district courts -- largely on antitrust grounds -- have answered the motion to dismiss of Pfizer and Wyeth, thus:
. . . .Plaintiffs further allege that competition between defendants will be eliminated upon merger, not only for drugs currently available in the marketplace, but also for drugs that will be available after FDA approval. Likewise, the merger will eliminate competition between the defendants to develop new drug therapies.
Moreover, the merger is likely to lead to additional mergers and further concentrate an already concentrated market, as shown, for example, by Merck's intent to acquire Schering-Plough. If the merger is completed, plaintiffs are threatened with higher drug prices, diminished choice of drugs, and lower quality of drugs. . . .
As I'd written about 20 days ago, I think the plaintiffs have only a small chance of surviving the motion to dismiss, here. Originally, I covered this because it purported to establish novel grounds for challenging mergers -- the use of TARP funds, allegedly to indirectly eliminate (pharmaceutical company workers') jobs. That claim has given way to a more traditional antitrust claim. So -- there you have it; I'll bring you up to date, when/if the dismissal order is entered.
No comments:
Post a Comment