In this action, the Plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of most of the States and several U.S. territories (“the States”), alleged that twenty-six pharmaceutical companies (“the Defendants”) participated in an overarching conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets, and rig bids in the sale of generic drugs for skin ailments, and are thus jointly and severally liable for violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair and deceptive practices laws.
The States claimed damages on behalf of various downstream entities that allegedly purchased these drugs: state agencies and insurance plans, and also consumers and businesses within the applicable States. The States retained economist Hal Singer to calculate putative damages based on the theory that alleged overcharges were passed through numerous intermediaries and re-sellers, from drug manufacturers to these end purchasers. Defendants filed a motion to exclude certain opinions of Singer.
Economics Expert Witness
Hal J. Singer has researched, published, and testified on competition-related issues in a wide variety of industries, including media, pharmaceuticals, sports, and finance. He has extensive experience providing expert economic and policy advice to regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada, as well as before congressional committees.
He has also served as expert for the Federal Trade Commission in a merger challenge and for several U.S. states in monopoly cases. The American Antitrust Institute honored Singer with an antitrust enforcement award for his work in Lidoderm Antitrust in 2018 and for his work in Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship in 2023. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics from The John Hopkins University.
Discussion by the Court
The Defendants filed a motion to exclude Singer’s opinion related to his pass-through damages estimates. To begin with, the Defendants argued that Singer’s analysis failed to differentiate between increases caused by an alleged overcharge and those caused by intermediaries’ independent pricing decisions.
The Court disagreed. Singer relied on sales and cost data produced by various third parties to calculate pass-through at each stage of the generic pharmaceutical supply chain.
The States need not isolate all possible causes of cost increases at each step in the distribution chain or show that the Defendants’ unlawful conduct was the sole cause of their injuries (or those of the consumers they represent). It is enough for them to show that the Defendants’ conduct was a substantial or materially contributing factor in producing their injuries.
The Defendants filed a motion to exclude Singer’s opinion concerning deadweight loss. In the summary judgment ruling, the Court concluded that damages for deadweight loss (and consumer surplus as it relates to “general economy” damages) are not available. Based on that ruling, the Court held that Singer will not be allowed to opine on these issues, and thus the Defendants’ motion to exclude his opinions in this respect was denied as moot.
Third, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude Singer’s opinion related to the putative premium increases that Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”) charged to certain States.
Here, too, the Defendants’ motion to exclude Singer’s opinion on this issue was denied as moot based on the summary judgment ruling.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude certain opinions of Hal Singer.
Key Takeaway
Congress’s 2023 amendment to Rule 702 made clear that: (1) a preponderance of the evidence standard applies to questions of admissibility under Rule 702; and (2) expert testimony “must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the expert’s basis and methodology.”
Singer’s report will assist the jury in deciding whether they have met that standard, and it is based on adequate data that he reliably applies. The Court found Singer’s opinion on pass-through damages estimates to be reliable and based on sufficient data.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Connecticut V. Sandoz, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 3:20cv802 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Connecticut |
| Order Date: | February 12, 2026 |
Leave a Reply