header-logo header-logo

Pfizer fined for excessive prices

14 December 2016
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Pharmaceutical company Pfizer has been fined a record £84.2m for charging excessive and unfair prices in the UK for an anti-epilepsy drug.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) also fined the distributor Flynn Pharma £5.2m, after finding that each company broke competition law for the drug, phenytoin sodium. The CMA has ordered the companies to reduce their prices.

In September 2012, the price increased by 2,600% overnight, when the company de-branded (or genericised) the product. This meant the NHS was charged £67.50 rather than £2.83 for 100mg packs of the drug, before the price decreased to £54 in May, 2014. Some 48,000 patients in the UK use the drug to control seizures, and cannot easily switch to another medicine.

The CMA found that both companies held a dominant market position, and that each abused that position.

Philip Marsden, chairman of the case decision group for the CMA’s investigation, said: “This is the highest fine the CMA has imposed and it sends out a clear message to the sector that we are determined to crack down on such behaviour and to protect customers, including the NHS, and taxpayers from being exploited.”

Gustaf Duhs, head of competition and regulatory at Stevens & Bolton, said: “It is very rare for competition regulators to take action in respect of excessive prices because it is very hard to define when a price becomes excessive, and because in a competitive market excessive prices are unsustainable (an increase in price will lead to a loss in market share).” 

Issue: 7727 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll