The opinion of the court was delivered by: Schiller, J.
THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: 09-md-2107 ALL ACTIONS
And so the parties in this nationwide putative class action lawsuit involving individuals who took a generic antidepressant manufactured and distributed by Defendants have resolved their dispute. On February 1, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties now seek final approval of the settlement, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards for certain Plaintiffs. The Court conducted a fairness hearing on May 25, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the Court certifies the settlement class, approves the settlement, and awards attorneys' fees and costs to Class counsel and incentive awards to certain named Plaintiffs. Thus, this multidistrict litigation comes to a close.
Bupropion Hydrochloride ("Bupropion") is the active ingredient in the prescription anti-depressant Wellbutrin and several generic antidepressants. (Admin. Class Action Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.)
By 2007, Buproprion was the fourth-most prescribed antidepressant in this country, with over 20 million retail prescriptions written annually. (Id. ¶ 13.) Its side effects include headaches, migraines, agitation, tremors, nervousness, dizziness, decreased memory, insomnia, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, chest pains, and seizures. (Id. ¶ 20.)
GlaxoSmithKline ("Glaxo") first brought Bupropion to the market in the late 1980s under the name Wellbutrin. (Id. ¶ 21.) It was originally available only in an immediate-release formulation, Wellbutrin IR, that the patient was required to take three times per day. (Id. ¶ 22.) It used a matrix release mechanism and was metabolized in the upper gastrointestinal tract. (Id.) The concentration of Bupropion in the blood peaked two hours after taking Wellbutrin IR. (Id. ¶ 23.) The initial sale of Wellbutrin IR, however, was delayed due to the possibility of serious side effects. (Id. ¶ 24.)
In 1996, Glaxo introduced Wellbutrin SR, a sustained-release formulation, which also used a matrix release mechanism; concentrations of Buproprion in the blood peaked three hours after taking Wellbutrin SR. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26.) Wellbutrin SR users often took two 150 mg pills per day. (Id. ¶ 26.) This iteration of the drug was prone to "dose dumping," meaning the drug was absorbed more quickly when the pill was taken with food. (Id. ¶ 28.) Glaxo, as well as the generic makers of Wellbutrin SR, disclosed the possibility of dose dumping on their labels, though they considered it clinically insignificant. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) The Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") did not require a New Drug Application ("NDA") for this formulation; instead, Glaxo was permitted to rely on the data submitted along with the immediate-release formulation. (Id.¶ 25.)
In 2003, Glaxo released Wellbutrin XL, an extended-release formulation that only needed to be taken once per day. (Id. ¶ 30.) Wellbutrin XL employed a membrane-release technology, meaning that "the drug was not released through a dissolving pill, but seeped at a controlled rate through a membrane that actually passed through the entire GI tract intact." (Id. ¶ 31.) This release mechanism solved the dose dumping problem, and Glaxo updated its label accordingly. (Id. ¶ 32.) Concentrations of Buproprion in the blood peaked five hours after taking Wellbutrin XL. (Id.) Additionally, the total amount of Buproprion released was only minimally affected by food and alcohol consumption. (Id.) Users of Wellbutrin XL received a steady amount of the medication, which is vital for a once-a-day pill. (Id. ¶ 33.) The membrane-release technology was patented, and thus generic drug manufacturers had to devise an extended-release formulation that did not infringe upon the patent. (Id. ¶ 34.) Generic drug companies such as Watson Pharmaceuticals and Anchen Pharmaceuticals developed a similar membrane technology, but Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. ("Impax") did not. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.)
Impax makes a 150 mg generic product called "bupropion hydrochloride XL," which is distributed by Global Pharmaceuticals, an Impax subsidiary. (Id. ¶ 50.) Impax also makes a 300 mg generic drug, Budeprion XL, which is distributed by Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals ("Teva"). (Id. ¶ 49.) The generic versions of Wellbutrin XL involved in this litigation entered the market in late 2006 or early 2007. (Id. ¶ 41.) These generics use a matrix technology rather than a membrane-release technology and rely on the size of the pill to control the release of the medication. (Id.) The generics subject to this litigation achieve peak concentrations in two hours, versus five hours for Wellbutrin XL and generic versions produced by Anchen and Watson. (Id. ¶ 43.) The matrix technology caused Defendants' pills to break apart more quickly than the name brand drugs and metabolize in the upper GI tract. (Id. ¶ 44.) Thus, the amount and rate of the active chemical released into the body from Defendants' drugs depended upon factors like food and alcohol consumption, other medications, and other GI issues. (Id. ¶ 44.) Users of Wellbutrin XL, on the other hand, attain the benefits of their medication without these concerns. (Id.)
Plaintiffs do not dispute the FDA's finding of bioequivalence, which was necessary to approve the generic drugs before they could be marketed. Instead, Plaintiffs claim that post-approval, Defendants became aware that the differences between Wellbutrin and their products were material, and thus they had a duty to disclose this information. (Id. ¶ 48.) Specifically, Plaintiffs say the more rapid release of Defendants' drugs renders them less effective in treating depression and more dangerous than products using a membrane-release technology. (Id. ¶ 52.) After Defendants' products arrived on the market, complaints poured in from patients who claimed that the generic drug they were taking was not as effective as Wellbutrin XL, and they were experiencing adverse side effects. (Id. ¶¶ 54-56.) Those patients who switched back to Wellbutrin XL or a non-Impax generic drug immediately improved. (Id. ¶ 57.) Although Defendants were made aware of the problems with their drugs, they failed to disclose this information or warn patients and doctors about the differences between the medications. (Id. ¶ 59.) In fact, to protect their market share, Defendants continued to misrepresent that the release profile of their products was identical to those of the name brand product. (Id. ¶¶ 60-62.) Furthermore, during sealed patent litigation involving the delivery method of Defendants' drugs, Defendants touted the differences between their method of delivery and that used in Wellbutrin XL. (Id. ¶ 63.) Additionally, studies showed that Budeprion XL released 34% of its Bupropion within the first hour, compared to only 8% for Wellbutrin XL (300 mg). (Id. ¶ 64.) And within two hours of ingestion, Budeprion XL released between 25 percent and 50 percent of its Bupropion, compared with less than 20 percent for Wellbutrin XL. (Id. ¶ 66.) In April 2008, under pressure from consumers, non-profit watchdogs, and the medical community, the FDA issued a report explaining some of the differences between Wellbutrin XL and Defendants' generic product; however, the FDA made no determination as to whether Defendants' warnings were adequate. (Id. ¶ 69.)
According to the Complaint, Defendants have made the following omissions and misrepresentations, among others: (1) failure to disclose that the Bupropion contained in Budeprion XL reaches its peak concentration in the bloodstream in just two hours and instead insisting that maximum levels are only reached after five hours; (2) failure to disclose that taking Defendants' products with food increases the amount of the drug eventually released into the body, thereby causing adverse events; (3) failure to disclose that the 300 mg generic drug was never tested for bioequivalence with Wellbutrin XL; (4) failure to disclose the existence of tests indicating that the dissolution of Defendants' products varies significantly from Wellbutrin XL; (5) failure to disclose numerous complaints of adverse side effects and decreased efficacy suffered by persons who switched from Wellbutrin XL to Defendants' products; (6) failure to disclose that their products have a different physiological and therapeutic effect than Wellbutrin XL; (7) failure to disclose that Defendants' products employ an inferior release technology; and (8) misrepresenting that their product work the same as Wellbutrin XL. (Id. ¶ 71.) Defendants also failed to inform those taking their drugs that they needed to be closely monitored. (Id. ¶¶ 72-75.) Defendants kept all of this information secret in an effort to protect their market share. (Id. ¶ 76.) According to the Complaint, if Plaintiffs knew the truth about Defendants' generic products, they would not have purchased those products. (Id. ¶ 142.) As a result, they suffered injury and lost money because they paid for an unsatisfactory product. (Id. ¶ 153.)
B. History of the Litigation
This litigation developed from the numerous complaints filed in both federal and state courts throughout this country. It began in this District, on June 22, 2009, with the filing of Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civ. A. No. 09-2811. Similar cases were filed in, or removed to, federal courts in the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Northern District of Texas, the Southern District of Ohio, the Southern District of Alabama, the Northern District of Oklahoma, and the Western District of Washington. In all of these cases, Plaintiffs sought to represent themselves and a class of individuals who had taken Defendants' generic version of Wellbutrin and whose conditions had worsened after switching to the drug. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that the cases should go to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") and be consolidated for pretrial purposes, although the parties disputed to which district the cases should be transferred. On December 2, 2009, the MDL panel issued its decision and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, transferred the cases to this District.
Although this litigation began as a number of distinct cases brought throughout the country seeking to apply various state laws, Plaintiffs employed a different strategy once the MDL Panel transferred the litigation here. Thus, on March 1, 2010, class representatives Micki Sackler and Andrew Richards filed an Administrative Class Action Complaint. As stated in the Administrative Class Action Complaint, "[t]his lawsuit seeks to apply California's statutory business standards to a California drug manufacturer (Impax) and its distribution partner (Teva) for uniform national conduct emanating from California. Defendants engage in nationwide market activity, providing the same label with every Impax Product that omits material information. A national solution makes sense." (Id. ¶¶ 99-100.)
The Administrative Class Action Complaint stated that the Class consisted of:
All persons or entities in the United States who purchased, paid-for (in whole or in part), Bupropion Hydrochloride XL (150 mg) and/or Budeprion XL (300 mg) manufactured by Impax.
Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Defendants, and their officers, directors, and employees, who are or have been employed by Defendants, and any judicial officer who may preside over this action.
(Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs sued under California's Unfair Competition Law based on the omissions and misrepresentations surrounding Defendants' products. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a pattern of unfair business practices that has harmed consumers, physicians, pharmacies, and insurance companies. They further allege that Defendants' actions have harmed competitors in that they allowed Defendants to unfairly seize market share. They also brought a claim under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act for Defendants' failure to disclose the differences between their products and Wellbutrin XL, including the decreased efficacy and increased risks of Defendants' products. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 26, 2010, arguing federal law preempted Plaintiffs' claims, and following the denial of Defendants' motion, Defendants answered the Administrative Class Action Complaint and discovery commenced in earnest. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on January 31, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), which revived the preemption argument on which Defendants relied in their motion to dismiss. In September 2011, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment based on the preemption issue. On November 8, 2011, the parties participated in an 11-hour mediation session with the Hon. Diane M. Welsh (Ret.). With her continued help, the parties agreed to settle their dispute.
On February 1, 2012, following a hearing, the Court conditionally certified the class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreement. In accordance with the Court's directive, the parties sent out notice of the settlement to the class. Class members were afforded the opportunity to object to the settlement. The Court conducted a fairness hearing on May 25, 2012, in which the Court heard from one of the three objectors. The parties have fully briefed the issues that must be decided to grant final approval of the settlement.
The "Settlement Class" comprises:
All individuals in the United States who, from 2006 to the present, purchased and/or paid-for (in whole or in part), for personal use and not for resale, Buproprion Hydrochloride XL (150 mg) and/or Budeprion XL (300-mg) manufactured by Impax. Excluded from the class are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Defendants, and their officers, directors, and employees, who are or have been employed by Defendants, and any judicial officer who may preside over this action. (Settlement Agreement ¶ 3.)
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Defendants agree to do the following:
a. Permanently change the prescribing insert for 300 mg Budeprion XL ("BP XL") to remove certain references to the trade name Budeprion XL;
b. Permanently change the disclosure regarding United States Pharmacopeia testing from "pending" to "meets USP Dissolution Test 6 ";
c. Refrain from selling the 500 count bottle of BP XL unless done in accordance with CBE-0 dated December 15, 2010 and submitted to the FDA;
d. Implement monitoring in 2012 and 2013 to ensure that Standard Operating Procedures are followed regarding investigations of consumer complaints relating to BP XL;
e. Implement monitoring in 2012 and 2013 to ensure compliance with Corrective Action/Preventative Action relating to BP XL;
f. Designate a senior quality and compliance officer for 2012 and 2013 who will oversee the quality of BP XL. This individual must report to one or more members of the board of directors about the quality and current Good Manufacturing Practice compliance. The Secretary of the Board must certify to class counsel Allan Kanner that the report was made; and
g. Post on the Impax website any future voluntary recalls related to BP XL. (Id. ¶ 7.)
The named Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class agreed to release Defendants from "any and all statutory or common-law claims for equitable or injunctive relief that have been or could have been brought in the Included Actions, including but not limited to any claim for restitution asserted in the Consolidated Administrative Class Action Complaint or any other statutory or common-law claim for restitution related to their use of BP XL." (Id. ¶ 12.) However, members of the class did not release any personal injury claims against Defendants. (Id.)
Class counsel submitted an affidavit from Jeffrey Dahl, a "nationally-recognized expert with over 19 years of experience in class action settlement administration." (Pls.' Mot. for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Ex. 1 [Dahl Aff.] ¶ 1.) Dahl explained the administration of the proposed Class action settlement of this litigation. Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, notice of the proposed settlement was sent to the appropriate state officials, including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Additionally, Court-approved published notice appeared in the New York Times on February 12 and 26, 2012 and in USA Today on February 20 and March 5, 2012. (Id. ¶ 7.) A toll-free settlement helpline was also established. (Id. ¶ 8.) Finally, a settlement website was set up, which included settlement information, frequently asked questions, a list of important dates and deadlines, and links to relevant documents from the litigation. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.)
A party seeking class certification must demonstrate: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4). These prerequisites are commonly referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. See Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182, 189 (3d Cir. 2011). If the dictates of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, the proposed class must satisfy at least one of the three requirements set forth in Rule 23(b). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2548 (2011). The proposed class here relies on Rule 23(b)(2), which applies when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."
The Court here is faced with a settlement-only class. The fact that a settlement is in place is relevant to the issue of class certification and thus may be considered by the court. In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 341 (3d Cir. 2010). While some of the requirements of Rule 23 demand heightened scrutiny in the settlement context, a court need not determine whether a case, if tried, would present intractable management problems, since the settlement negates the need for a trial. Id.
a. Numerosity "No minimum number of plaintiffs is required to maintain a suit as a class action, but generally if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40, the first prong of Rule 23(a) has been met." Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 226-27 (3d Cir. 2001). Clearly, the numerosity requirement is met here. Although the exact size of the class is unknown, Class counsel estimates the total number of class members to be as many as 2,235,000, though at a minimum the "proposed class consists of hundreds of thousands of persons in the United States who paid for the Impax product subject to this litigation." ...