Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Vitamin price-fixing litigation

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

Sumitomo Chemical Co. dismissed from vitamin price-fixing class action due to lack of personal jurisdiction. In an April 24 opinion, D.C. federal Judge Thomas Hogan concludes Japan-based firm "lacks the requisite local contacts to support personal jurisdiction" in the district. Sumitomo was among the nonsettling defendants named in a class action, certified in February, on behalf of direct purchasers of vitamins A, B, C, E, beta carotene and premixes (1"The Tan Sheet" March 4, 2002, p. 11)...

You may also be interested in...



Vitamin price-fixing

Dietary supplement manufacturer and multi-level marketer Shaklee is one of eight representative plaintiffs in class action suit certified by D.C. federal Judge Thomas Hogan Feb. 25. Action was filed in June 2000 on behalf of direct purchasers of vitamins A, B, C, E, beta carotene and premixes from nonsettling defendants "or their co-conspirators" between Jan. 1, 1990 and Sept. 30, 1998. Defendants include Merck KgaA, Sumitomo Chemical America, Tanabe USA, Lonza, Nepera, Reilly Industries, Degussa-Huls. The thousands of class members will be given chance to opt out; 224 class members, representing approximately 75% of vitamin purchases at issue, previously opted out of a class settlement against seven defendants, including Hoffman-LaRoche, BASF (1"The Tan Sheet" April 3, 2000, p. 7)...

Did Sarepta Need To Tell Investors About Its Vyondys 53 Dispute Resolution Request?

Attorneys say Sarepta did not have an obligation to report its appeal, particularly since winning a formal dispute filing with the US FDA is a long shot.

Sarepta’s Vyondys: Renal Toxicity Concerns That Delayed Approval Get Enhanced Postmarketing Scrutiny, Label Warning

Sarepta must perform enhanced pharmacovigilance for serious renal toxicity events and rhabdomyolysis with the Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug, which carries a label warning for renal toxicity. Approval letter includes 2024 target completion date for ESSENCE confirmatory trial.

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS094018

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel