Other Statutes Cases filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Cases 1 - 10 of 10
New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv01349
Defendant: CVS TN Distribution, LLC, McKesson Corporation, Allergan Sales, LLC and others
Plaintiff: New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Hollow Metal Trust Fund v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv01348
Defendant: CVS TN Distribution, LLC, McKesson Corporation, Allergan Sales, LLC and others
Plaintiff: Hollow Metal Trust Fund
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2020cv00706
Defendant: Martin Shkreli, Kevin Mulleady, Phoenixus AG and others
Plaintiff: State of New York, Federal Trade Commission, State of California and others
Petitioner: Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, ASD Healthcare and others
Not Classified By Court: Medisca, Inc., Infectious Diseases Society of America, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and others
Interested Party: Cerovene, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 53 b
County of Rockland, New York v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al
as 7:2019cv05588
Plaintiff: County of Rockland, New York
Defendant: Cardinal Health Pharmacy Services, LLC, Purdue Pharma, Inc., CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS Caremark and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ra
Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al
as 1:2018cv04750
Defendant: Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2018cv04361
Defendant: Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and others
Plaintiff: Drogueria Betances, LLC, H-E-B LP, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., and others
Consolidated Plaintiff: Law Enforcement Health Benefits Inc., Turlock Irrigation District and UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund
Respondent: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Not Classified By Court: Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., OptumRX, Inc. and others
Interested Party: Caremark PHC, LLC and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)
Teamster Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund, et al v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al
as 1:2018cv00336
Defendant: Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2015cv07488
Defendant: Merz GmbH & Co. KGaA., Actavis, plc, Forest Laboratories LLC and others
Plaintiff: JM Smith Corporation On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated doing business as Smith Drug Company
Interested Party: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.
Not Classified By Court: AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Cardinal Health, Inc. and others
Consolidated Plaintiff: Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
Federal Trade Commission v. Cardinal Health, Inc.
as 1:2015cv03031
Plaintiff: Federal Trade Commission
Defendant: Cardinal Health, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 45
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cardinal Health, Inc.
as 1:2007cv06709
Plaintiff: United States Securities and Exchange Commission, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, United States Securities and Exchange Commission and others
Defendant: Cardinal Health, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?