Find this week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; HRSA Audit Process; Other

• In two cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Nebraska, the defendant filed a supplemental reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
• In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri, amici filed a supplemental brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, and proposed intervenors filed reply suggestions in support of proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene.
• In three cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Maine, one plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and in two cases, the court denied each plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and each plaintiff appealed the decision.
• In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Colorado, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
• In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Rhode Island, the plaintiff filed [...]
  
  Continue Reading

Find this week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other; HRSA Audit Process

• In two cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri, the parties filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, which the court granted, and plaintiffs filed memoranda in opposition to proposed intervenors’ motion to intervene and in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
• In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Nebraska, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
• In three cases challenging a Utah state law, the defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed response to the notices of supplemental authority.
• In four cases challenging HRSA’s audit process, the appellate court denied the plaintiff-appellants’ emergency motions for stay or injunction pending appeal.
• In a case challenging a state law in Tennessee, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of its first amended complaint.
• In a case by a drug manufacturer against the government, [...]
  
  Continue Reading

Find this week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In three cases challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) audit process, the plaintiff-appellants filed a motion to stay the lower court’s order granting the government’s motion to dismiss pending appeal.
• In two cases challenging a Nebraska law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a brief in opposition to the amended complaint.
• In one case challenging a Missouri law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint, proposed intervenors filed a motion to intervene, and intervenors filed a brief in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
• In a case challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the drug manufacturer filed a brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.
• In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the court denied in part and granted in part the insurance company’s motion to dismiss.