Category: Judicial

A federal district judge in New Jersey has denied drug manufacturer Sanofi’s emergency motion for a stay against 340B administrative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings—in part because she said she will hand down her decision in Sanofi’s 340B contract pharmacy lawsuit

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich all but told the federal government during a court hearing in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday she rejects its basic argument that the plain text of the 340B statute requires drug manufacturers to honor 340B purchases

The federal government yesterday asked a federal district judge to deny drug manufacturer Sanofi’s request for emergency protection from being brought before a 340B administrative dispute resolution panel.

Sanofi asked the judge for an emergency stay last week. The

A federal district judge said today she “has a hard time following” the federal government’s argument that the 340B statute requires drug manufacturers to honor covered entities’ drug purchases no matter how entities choose to distribute the medicines.

“It seems

A federal district judge has given government lawyers until Wednesday to weigh in on drug manufacturer Sanofi’s request for emergency protection from being brought before a 340B administrative dispute resolution panel.

U.S. Chief District Judge Freda Wolfson gave the U.S.

Drug manufacturer Sanofi yesterday asked a federal judge in New Jersey to stay 340B administrative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings against it brought by health centers seeking to overturn Sanofi’s restrictions on 340B pricing when covered entities use contract pharmacies.

Sanofi

A federal district judge in Rochester, N.Y., has given four insulin and diabetes drug manufacturers until Oct. 29 to file a motion to dismiss an upstate New York health center’s lawsuit claiming the manufacturers conspired to stop offering 340B pricing

A new federal district judge has been assigned to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s (PhRMA) lawsuit challenging Arkansas’s 340B nondiscrimination act.

PhRMA’s case, filed on Sept. 29, was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky, a Trump appointee.

A federal appeals court is considering some South Carolina Walgreens customers’ claims that Walgreens, in its capacity as a 340B contract pharmacy and as a 340B contract pharmacy third-party administrator (TPA), violated their privacy rights under South Carolina law.

The

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) asked a federal district court yesterday to rule that Arkansas’s 340B nondiscrimination act does not require drug manufacturers “to offer price discounts under the 340B program to contract pharmacies in Arkansas.”

PhRMA also