Header graphic for print
Focus on Regulation

Tag Archives: settlement

“I want my money back!” – Cartel damages claims after the 9th reform of the German Competition Act

One of the primary aspects covered by the 9th reform of the German Competition Act that has just entered into effect is the transposition of the EU Cartel Damages Directive into German law. The preparatory works in the draft bill as well as the government draft thereby come to a conclusion.

Despite their long tradition and intended relevance, the rules on cartel damages claims in the Competition Act have been rather dormant for quite some time. However, in recent years, the topic gained in importance considerably. Now, the legislator stays abreast of this trend. The competition law reform significantly supplements the rules dedicated to private cartel damages claims, providing a legal basis upon which both claimants and defendants can rely upon in cartel damage proceedings. By further improving the legislative base, the reform will contribute to the reputation of Germany as a preferred venue for cartel damages litigation.

It’s Settled … At Least Somewhat: Settlement of the First Amendment Case Amarin Pharma v. FDA

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Amarin Pharma, Inc. (Amarin) have released a stipulation and settlement order that would resolve all causes of action raised in Amarin’s successful lawsuit against the agency, with both parties waiving the right to appeal. On August 7, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

New York AG settles with “patent troll” targeting end-users of patented technologies

On 14 January the New York Attorney General (AG) announced a settlement with MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC related to the patent assertion entity’s (PAE’s) licensing demands. At least three other state attorneys general have publically assailed the tactics of MPHJ, which allegedly demands royalty payments from small- and medium-sized businesses that use everyday technologies like

Administrative Court takes a hard line on costs applications following settlement

In an effort to limit the number of applications for costs in respect of settled judicial review claims that are “poorly considered and prepared by the parties“, and that “consum[e] judicial time far beyond what is proportionate“, the Administrative Court has issued guidance on how it will deal with such applications after 20 November 2013.

Recent Janssen/J&J Risperdal State Settlement Restricts Certain Promotional Activities for Atypical Antipsychotics

On August 30, 2012, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Janssen”) and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson, agreed to pay $181 million to 37 states and the District of Columbia to settle allegations that the marketing and advertising of its atypical antipsychotic products (Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Risperdal M-Tab, and Invega) violated state consumer protection laws.  The settlement imposes