ARTICLE
5 September 2024

This Week In 340B: August 27 – September 2, 2024

MW
McDermott Will & Emery

Contributor

McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. With more than 1,100 lawyers across several office locations worldwide, our team works seamlessly across practices, industries and geographies to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success.
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...
United States Arkansas Maryland Missouri West Virginia Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

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, a subscription product from McDermott+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

  • In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Arkansas, Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia:
    • AR: The plaintiff filed an opposition to the intervenor's motion to dismiss.
    • MO: The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss and a response in opposition to defendant's motion to transfer venue. In the same case, a group of three amici filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant's motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • MD: The defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
    • WV: In two cases, defendants filed answers to plaintiff's complaints, and plaintiffs filed replies in support of their motions for preliminary injunctions. In a third case, defendants filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint. In a fourth case, plaintiff filed a combined memorandum in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction and in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More