What was unusual about the Teva and Glenmark resolutions?
Both were required to divest their pravastatin businesses — a 'novel' criminal antitrust remedy — and Teva's deferred prosecution agreement, reached after three years of litigation, appears unprecedented for the Antitrust Division, allowing it to avoid mandatory federal healthcare exclusion.
Two things. First, the Justice Department required both companies to divest their pravastatin businesses, a remedy it called "extraordinary" and which commentators described as novel in a criminal antitrust case. The goal was to restore competition in the market for the cholesterol drug at the centre of the conspiracy. Second, the agreements were deferred prosecution agreements reached after three years of litigation rather than at the time of charging, which appears to be unprecedented for the Antitrust Division. Deferred prosecution allowed Teva to avoid a conviction that would have triggered mandatory exclusion from federal healthcare programmes, which would have been devastating for the largest US generic supplier. Teva also agreed to donate $50 million of generic drugs.