Search Results
The default setting for search results displays All Content. If you prefer to see recent content only, please adjust the date filter.
Filter your results:
Types
Topics
6 Results Found
AHA, Others File Amicus Brief in Fourth Circuit in Support of Maryland 340B Contract Pharmacy Law
AHA, others file amicus brief in Fourth Circuit in support of Maryland 340B contract pharmacy law.
AHA et al Amicus Brief Re: 340B in Novartis v. Morrissey Litigation
AHA et al Amicus Brief to Prevent Injunction Against 340B Pricing for Contract Pharmacy Arrangements in Novartis v. Morrissey Litigation
AHA, Others File Amicus Brief in Maryland to Prevent Injunction Against 340B Pricing for Contract Pharmacy Arrangements
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AHA, Others File Brief in Missouri to Prevent Injunction Against 340B Pricing for Contract Pharmacy Arrangements
The American Hospital Association, 340B Health, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (collectively, the “Proposed Amici”) respectfully move this Court for leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief in support of Defendants Attorney General Andrew Bailey, President of the Missouri Board of Pharmacy James L. Gray, Vice President of the Missouri Board of Pharmacy Christian S. Tadrus, and Members of the Missouri Board of Pharmacy Douglas R. Lang, Colby Grove, Anita K. Parran, Tammy Thompson, and Darren Harris’s Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Exhibit A).
Amicus Brief: AHA 340B Health Arkansas Hospital Association in support of Arkansas’ 340B Drug Pricing Nondiscrimination Act
Amicus Brief: AHA 340B Health Arkansas Hospital Association in support of Arkansas’ 340B Drug Pricing Nondiscrimination Act against a challenge brought by PhRMA.
Decision by U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson Regarding the Legality of the 340B Drug Pricing Nondiscrimination Act
Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Preemption (Doc. No. 24), Defendant Leslie Rutledge’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32), and Intervenors’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Preemption (Doc. No. 35). The parties have responded and replied.1 For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Intervenors’ cross-motion is GRANTED. Defendant Leslie Rutledge’s cross-motion is DENIED as MOOT.