BDX » Topics » In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation

This excerpt taken from the BDX 10-Q filed Feb 9, 2009.
“In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

The Company is also named as a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the Company’s products, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows:

These excerpts taken from the BDX 10-K filed Nov 26, 2008.
In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

     BD is also named as a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of BD’s products, alleging that BD violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for BD’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows:

In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”



     BD is also named as
a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect
purchasers of BD’s products, alleging that BD violated federal antitrust
laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for BD’s products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows:

This excerpt taken from the BDX 10-Q filed Aug 6, 2008.
In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

The Company is also named as a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the Company’s products, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows:

This excerpt taken from the BDX 10-Q filed May 7, 2008.
In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

The Company is also named as a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the Company’s products, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: Jabo’s Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005; Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson and Company (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on January 17, 2006; Medstar v. Becton Dickinson (Case No. 06-CV-03258-JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on May 18, 2006; and The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton Dickinson and Company (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York), filed on March 28, 2007. A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers (International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice v. Becton Dickinson & Company (Case No. 2:07-cv-10602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on April 5, 2007) was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek monetary damages. All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in federal court in New Jersey.

On June 6, 2006, UltiMed, Inc., a Minnesota company, filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota (

This excerpt taken from the BDX 10-Q filed Feb 4, 2008.
In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

The Company is also named as a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the Company’s products, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows:

This excerpt taken from the BDX 10-K filed Nov 23, 2007.
In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.

     The Company is also named as a defendant in four purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the Company’s products, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows:

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki