OraSure–Prestige Brands arbitration
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Prestige Brand's acquisition of the Wartner cryosurgical wart removal line breaches a non-compete provision between OraSure and Prestige, which markets OraSure's Compound W Freeze Off wart removal products, an arbitration panel states Oct. 23. The Wartner products compete directly in the domestic OTC market against Freeze Off, in violation of a clause in the parties' distribution agreement. The panel concludes OraSure is entitled to an award of its legal fees and share of arbitrators' costs and that all counterclaims asserted by Prestige Brands are rejected. Prestige Brands acquired Wartner in 2006 (1"The Tan Sheet" Oct. 2, 2006, p. 8)...
You may also be interested in...
OraSure, Schering-Plough lawsuit
Compound W Freeze Off marketer OraSure has reached an agreement on principal terms to settle pending patent infringement litigation against Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, which markets the Dr. Scholl's Freeze Away wart-removal product, firm announces Nov. 14. Under terms of the settlement, Schering-Plough will receive a license to OraSure's patents in the U.S. OTC market, and OraSure will receive monetary compensation from past and future sales. The settlement is subject to completion and execution of a final agreement. OraSure filed the lawsuit in 2004. Recently, an arbitration panel found in favor of OraSure starting Prestige Brands' 2006 acquisition of Wartner wart-removal line breached a no-compete agreement between the firms (1"The Tan Sheet" Oct. 29, 2007), In Brief)...
OraSure Sues To Freeze Prestige’s Purchase Of Wartner Wart Medicines
OraSure Technologies is alleging breach of contract against Prestige Brands following the distributor's $31 mil. acquisition of the Wartner cryosurgical wart removal product line Sept. 25
California Court’s Inaction On TiO2 Prop 65 First Amendment Case Breeds New Lawsuits
The Personal Care Products Council seeks to stem the rising tide of titanium dioxide Proposition 65 lawsuits, requesting that a California court prohibit the state’s Attorney General and private enforcers from filing and/or prosecuting new suits against cosmetics companies failing to warn about potential TiO2 exposure.