Case Activity (5070)

1. Order | Filed: August 24, 2026 | Entered: August 24, 2026 Connecticut et al v. Sandoz, Inc. et al

   Anti-Trust | Connecticut

   Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

   ORDER. Defendant Ara Aprahamian's 1006 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Aprahamian's motion consists entirely of adopting the arguments made by his former employer, Taro, in its own motion for summary judgment, as well as those arguments from the Defendants' Joint Memorandum in Support of Defendant-Specific Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 979 , 1008 . As such, for the reasons expressed in the Taro ruling, ECF No. 1410 , Aprahamian's motion is GRANTED as to the States' claims that he unlawfully conspired with regard to Acetazolamide, Ammonium lactate cream and lotion, Desonide cream, Halobetasol propionate cream and ointment, and Hydrocortisone valerate cream. Aprahamian's Motion is DENIED as to the States' claims that he unlawfully conspired with regard to Alclometasone dipropionate ointment, Clindamycin phosphate solution, Econazole nitrate cream, Fluocinonide.1% cream, Fluocinonide gel, Metronidazole 1% gel, Phenytoin sodium extended-release capsules, and Terconazole cream, as a reasonable jury could find that Aprahamian more likely than not participated in conspiracies on each of these drugs.
   
   Taro also moved for partial summary judgment on Carbamazepine ER Tablets for the period from 2009 to 2012, before Aprahamian was employed at Taro. See ECF No. 1410 at 117. To the extent the States seek to press a claim against Aprahamian for this period, summary judgment is granted to Aprahamian. I make no findings on the States' claims that Aprahamian unlawfully conspired with competitors with regard to Carbamazepine as of 2013.
   
   I granted summary judgment to Taro on the States' claims for injunctive relief in part because of "the departure of the key players from—especially Aprahamian." ECF No. 1410 at 182. But neither Taro nor Aprahamian points to any evidence regarding whether there is a risk that Aprahamian will commit future antitrust violations outside of his employment from Taro, other than noting that the United States Department of Justice prosecuted Aprahamian only to later drop all charges against him. ECF No. 1036-1 ¶ 446. As this evidence does not speak to a likelihood of recurrence, I deny Aprahamian's motion for summary judgment as to the States' claims for injunctive relief.
   
   Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 08/24/2026. (RM)

2. Order | Filed: August 24, 2026 | Entered: August 24, 2026 Connecticut et al v. Sandoz, Inc. et al

   Anti-Trust | Connecticut

   Order

   ORDER: The Court has reviewed the motion for preliminary approval of the States' allocation plan (ECF No. 1472 ). The Court has a few questions about the proposed plan and schedules a telephonic status conference for Tuesday, August 25, at 1:30 pm. The assistant attorneys general who are familiar with the proposed plan must be on the call; if they cannot be, they should file a motion to continue the telephonic status conference. Others may participate as they see fit. Among others, the Court has the following questions/concerns about the proposal:
   

   1. Certain aspects of the long-form notice, especially the explanations of "exclusion," appear to be confusing.
   
   2. While the Court agrees with the States that facilitating and expediting the filing of claims forms and dispensing with the submission of receipts make sense in the overall context of these settlements, it is concerned that merely providing a blank to insert an "estimate" for claimants who might choose option #2 is susceptible to abuse, i.e., fraud or guessing. The Court would like to discuss with counsel whether there are other reasonable options for ensuring that persons with large potential claims are recognized and treated fairly.
   
   3. How many persons have registered on the settlement website at this time?

   Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 08/24/2026. (RM)

3. 5068 additional result(s)