The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has accused
competitors King and Auden Mckenzie of sharing out between them
the supply of nortriptyline to a large pharmaceutical wholesaler.
The CMA has provisionally found that, in 2014, the 2 companies
agreed Auden Mckenzie would supply only 10mg nortriptyline
tablets and King would supply only 25mg nortriptyline tablets, as
well as agreeing to fix the quantities and the prices of supply.
The CMA has also accused the companies King, Alissa and Lexon of
exchanging commercially sensitive information, including
information about prices, volumes and entry plans, to try to keep
Nortriptyline prices high.
Nortriptyline is prescribed by the NHS and relied on by thousands
of patients every month to relieve the symptoms of depression.
NHS spending on the drug peaked at £38 million in 2015.
In a Statement of Objections issued today, the CMA has
provisionally found that King and Auden Mckenzie’s conduct, and
the subsequent conduct of King, Alissa and Lexon, broke
competition law.
Geoff Steadman, Director of Antitrust at the CMA, said:
If pharmaceutical companies get together to restrict
competition for the supply of a drug, this can lead to the NHS
– and ultimately the UK taxpayer – paying over the odds for
what are often essential medical treatments.
We expect drug suppliers to abide by competition law so that
the NHS is not denied the opportunity of benefitting from lower
prices for medicines.
This is the CMA’s provisional finding and the companies now have
the chance to make representations to the CMA before it reaches a
final decision.
For more information see the case page. 
Notes to editors
-
The Chapter I prohibition in the Competition Act 1998
prohibits anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices
between businesses which have as their object or effect the
prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within
the UK. Similarly, Article 101 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits
anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices which may
affect trade between EU member states. 
-
The CMA may impose a financial penalty on any business
found to have infringed these prohibitions of up to 10% of
its annual worldwide group turnover. In calculating financial
penalties, the CMA takes into account a number of factors
including seriousness of the infringement(s), turnover in the
relevant market and any mitigating or aggravating factors. 
-
A Statement of Objections gives parties notice of a proposed
infringement decision under the competition law prohibitions
in the Competition Act 1998 or the TFEU. It is a
provisional decision only and does not necessarily lead to an
infringement decision. Parties have the opportunity to make
written and oral representations on the matters set out in
the statement of objections. Any such representations will be
considered by the CMA before any final decision is made.
The final decision will be taken by a case decision group,
which is separate from the case investigation team and was
not involved in the decision to issue the statement of
objections. 
-
The Statement of Objections is addressed to Alissa Healthcare
Research Limited, Auden Mckenzie (Pharma Division) Limited,
Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited, Accord-UK Limited, King
Pharmaceuticals Limited, Praze Consultants Limited and Lexon
(UK) Limited.  
-
The Statement of Objections is addressed to Accord-UK Limited
(formerly named Actavis UK Limited) because the CMA
provisionally considers it was the economic successor of
Auden Mckenzie (Pharma Division) Limited and should therefore
be held liable for that company’s direct involvement in the
alleged infringement.  
-
The Statement of Objections is addressed to Praze Consultants
Limited, a consultancy which conducted King’s corporate and
commercial services, because the CMA provisionally considers
that Praze directly participated in both the infringements of
competition law alleged against King.  
-
All information relating to this case can be found on
the CMA case
page.   
