Monitor the November 12 pretrial conference for decisions on live testimony and attorney-client privilege waiver, which could affect the strength of the States' case. The February 2027 trial date is the next major catalyst — any settlement activity or dispositive motions before then would be more impactful than this evidentiary ruling.
Price Chart
Executive Summary
The court denied the States' motion to preclude two former Mylan employees (Nesta and Aigner) from withdrawing their Fifth Amendment invocations and providing substantive testimony at the upcoming February 2027 trial in a multi-state generic drug price-fixing antitrust case. However, the court granted remedial measures, including admitting the witnesses' prior Fifth Amendment invocations as evidence and allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference. Sandoz is a co-defendant in this case alongside Mylan and over a dozen other generic drug companies. The ruling is procedural and interlocutory — it does not resolve any liability or award damages, and the trial remains months away.
Court Ruling Details
Key Facts
- Ruling on motion to preclude testimony of two former Mylan employees who invoked Fifth Amendment in 2022 depositions and now seek to provide substantive testimony.
- Court DENIED preclusion of the witnesses' withdrawal of Fifth Amendment invocations, allowing their July 2026 deposition testimony to be used at trial.
- Court GRANTED remedial measures: the witnesses' prior Fifth Amendment invocations will be admitted as evidence, and the jury may draw an adverse inference.
- Trial for bulk of allegations is scheduled to begin February 3, 2027.
- Sandoz is one of over 20 defendants in this multi-state generic drug price-fixing antitrust action.
- No damages, fines, or liability have been determined by this ruling.
Financial Impact
No financial exposure determined by this ruling. The case remains pending with trial set for February 2027.
Risk Factors
- Adverse jury inference from Fifth Amendment invocations could strengthen the States' case against all defendants, including Sandoz.
- If the witnesses' substantive testimony is favorable to defendants, it could weaken the States' price-fixing allegations.
- A final adverse judgment at trial could result in significant antitrust damages (treble damages) and injunctive remedies.
Documents Analyzed
This report is based on 1 court opinion.
| Document | Accession Number |
|---|---|
| COURT-RULING Data (Synthetic) | court-7f6bc50f96-SDZ |
Filters
| Type | Now | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oct 16, 2026 11d ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Oct 7, 2026 20d ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Sep 30, 2026 27d ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Sep 30, 2026 27d ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Sep 11, 2026 6w ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Aug 12, 2026 10w ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Aug 6, 2026 11w ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Jul 22, 2026 13w ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
Jul 8, 2026 15w ago | Court Ruling | — | awaiting T+20 | — | — |
US Market Status
Subscribe to SecBot
Get Real-Time Court Ruling Intelligence
Market-moving court rulings analyzed within minutes. Patent verdicts, antitrust decisions, class certifications, and more — parsed and scored by AI.
Create a free account Live analysis, Telegram alerts, watchlists and the MCP server for subscribers