Amicus Brief: In Re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation
In the Niaspan reverse payment case, a potential class of End Purchasers sought class certification; however, the court incorrectly concluded that the End Purchasers did not identify the class in an administratively feasible manner. Even so, the evidence demonstrated otherwise, meaning the class actually was ascertainable. COSAL argued that this ascertainability decision went against traditional methods utilized by courts for reverse payment cases. If the Panel ultimately determined that Third Circuit law on administrative feasibility showed that the class was not ascertainable, COSAL asked that they rehear this appeal en banc. The heightened administrative feasibility requirement should not be a prerequisite to certify the class, as it goes against both Rule 23 text and precedent. This decision is important because the misapplication of the ascertainability requirement would hinder certification, making it more difficult for individuals to recover from antitrust claims. Therefore, the brief asserted that the Court should reverse the district court’s denial of class certification. Authored by Gary Smith, Jr. and Matthew Perez.
