Do you have time to read a novella this morning?
In a consent case before Magistrate Judge Goodman, surely one of the most heavily-litigated civil cases in our District, the Good Goodman has decided to enter an order granting sj to the Defendant (italics are simply for emphasis):
Eight hours of oral argument, culminating in a 101 page order?!?!?!This litigation arose out of a Collaboration Agreement between two companies involved in the pharmaceutical business, Plaintiff Procaps S.A. (“Procaps”) and Defendant Patheon Inc. (“Patheon”). Procaps and Patheon have spent much of the past three years involved in an expensive, bitter, time‐consuming, and hard‐fought legal battle in federal court. Procaps contends that Patheon, in effect, turned on it relatively soon after their Collaboration Agreement was formed by acquiring Procaps’ principal competitor, Banner Pharmacaps (“Banner”).
The Collaboration Agreement, however, contains a dispute resolution clause which requires breach of contract claims, fraud in the inducement claims and disputes other than a limited list of excluded claims to be resolved through arbitration. An antitrust claim is one of the few types specifically excluded from the mandatory arbitration provision. Procaps decided to file an antitrust lawsuit.
Although Procaps agreed (and still agrees) that the Collaboration Agreement was lawful when initially enacted even though it contained horizontal market allocation provisions, it later alleged that Patheon transformed the Collaboration Agreement into an illegal restraint when it acquired Banner.
Over the past three years, Procaps has developed evidence which, if accepted by a fact‐finder in a breach of contract claim, could support a compelling narrative about a company wronged by a business partner who should have been working with it under the comprehensive written Agreement. But, as noted, the Collaboration Agreement bans a traditional breach of contract lawsuit (i.e., it must be arbitrated), so the issue now is whether Patheon is entitled to a ruling in its favor on its summary judgment motion
[ECF No. 889] targeting Procaps’ remaining federal antitrust claim.
The Court has reviewed the motion, briefs, proposed orders, and evidentiary record, and heard oral argument at a hearing lasting almost eight hours on September 24, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Patheon’s motion.
What is this, Shoah?
(Sorry, the Holocaust and pop culture from the 70s and 80s are pretty much my only references).
It's a dead man's party -- Happy Halloween!