Bristol Myers
In my opinion Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis seek a settlement rather than let the patent infringement case go to trial because Bristol-Myers Squibb fail to disclose the oral side deal with Apotex and its false certification to the FTC. Going to trial would have cost Bristol-Myers a great deal of money and severe penalties from the FTC. Bristol-Myers knew before hand that the FTC opposes agreements that restricted the introduction of generic drugs which could be anti-competitive. Bristol- Myers was hoping that it could have pursued a settlement with Apotex subjected to FTC approval and delay the launch of Apotex generic drug until its patent expire.
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis should have attempted to pay Apotex to prevent it from launching the generic drug. It seems that BMS only entered the agreement because they felt that Apotex could not get approval. BMS offered Apotex $60 million break-up fee if the agreement was rejected by the FTC (Baron, 2010). To offer such a high break-up fee meant that BMS was very certain of the denial by the antitrust. The deal offered was to prevent Apotex from launching their version of plavix.
The strategy exerted by Sherman of Apotex was considered to be great judgment call on his part as well as the business. I believe he acted ethically in his strategy and negotiated terms that would benefit his business. He performed extensive research and found many distributors who wanted to purchase Plavix at very low and reasonable cost. On August 8th Apotex launched its generic Drug. Sherman states that, “There should be no mistake that our decision to launch a generic of this blockbuster product at risk is a testament to our commitment to patients, consumers and taxpayers (Baron, 2010). Because he was a good business man he made sure that the product was on the market and sales were soaring.
I felt that the FTC and the state attorneys general should have rejected the agreements. Companies must
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis should have attempted to pay Apotex to prevent it from launching the generic drug. It seems that BMS only entered the agreement because they felt that Apotex could not get approval. BMS offered Apotex $60 million break-up fee if the agreement was rejected by the FTC (Baron, 2010). To offer such a high break-up fee meant that BMS was very certain of the denial by the antitrust. The deal offered was to prevent Apotex from launching their version of plavix.
The strategy exerted by Sherman of Apotex was considered to be great judgment call on his part as well as the business. I believe he acted ethically in his strategy and negotiated terms that would benefit his business. He performed extensive research and found many distributors who wanted to purchase Plavix at very low and reasonable cost. On August 8th Apotex launched its generic Drug. Sherman states that, “There should be no mistake that our decision to launch a generic of this blockbuster product at risk is a testament to our commitment to patients, consumers and taxpayers (Baron, 2010). Because he was a good business man he made sure that the product was on the market and sales were soaring.
I felt that the FTC and the state attorneys general should have rejected the agreements. Companies must
Cited: