CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION & CLASS ACTION CAPITAL PARTNERSHIP PORTAL

SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Blue Cross Blue Shield MDL – Providers (Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:13-cv-20000)

The case alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield companies throughout the United States colluded to carve the country into territories in which only one “Blue” could sell insurance and/ or contract with healthcare providers and subscribers in violation of antitrust laws.

The BCBS Providers complaint alleges a “monopsony.” The idea is that because the Blues cannot participate in more than one area, there is a lack of buyers, so each single Blue controls the price.   This resulted in those providers and subscribers paying more than they would have in a competitive market.

Those eligible include all healthcare providers not employed or owned by a Defendant, who have provided healthcare, equipment, or supplies other than 1. Those covered by standalone dental or vision insurance, 2. Pharmaceutical drugs, 3. Durable equipment, 4. Medical devices, 5. Clinical laboratory supplies.

Generic Pharmaceutical Pricing Antitrust Litigation

The lawsuit claims that generic drug manufacturers violated antitrust laws, harming competition and causing settlement class members to overpay for over 150 Named Generic Drugs between May 1, 2009, through December 31, 2019.

The defendant list includes 58 of the country’s major generic drug manufacturers. The settling defendants deny liability as alleged in the lawsuit, and the court has not decided who is right or wrong.

Currently, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA have settled for a combined total of $85 million in the Direct Case, and Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals settled for $1,000,000 in the Indirect Reseller case, but it is Class Action Capital’s opinion that this could be among the largest settlements in US history.

There are three potential classes your organization may qualify for depending on how you purchase these products and for what purpose: Direct, Indirect, and End Payor.

Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement

The settlement resolves allegations that VISA, MasterCard, and their issuing banks violated the law by charging excessive interchange fees to merchants. 

While no official claim form is available and claimants do not need to sign up with any third-party service in order to participate in monetary relief, many eligible companies choose to outsource the claims process to companies like Class Action Capital and avoid the responsibility of managing the process internally, such as deficiencies or audits, and the potential difficulty of understanding what data is provided by the defendants, how the data, or lack thereof, applies to your company’s claim, as well as what additional information can be provided to ensure a better-positioned claim.

The Class Administrator will have data from Defendants and others, which it expects will permit it to estimate the total value of interchange fees attributable to each authorized claimant.  No-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claims-filing period. The Court-approved website is www.paymentcardsettlement.com. If the data is not reasonably available to estimate a class member’s Interchange Fees Paid or if the value established by the Class Administrator is disputed by the class member, claimants will be required to submit information in support of their claim.

Class Action Capital can assist with this process by organizing the ways data is tracked by your organization and presenting that to the Class Administrator in a concise report to get an understanding of what matches.  If there is any discrepancy between the information the Class Administrator has and what your organization believes to be correct, Class Action Capital can establish an argument and negotiate with the Class Administrator on your behalf.