b'competing product, Auvi-Q; and certain anticompetitiveThe court also rejected defendants arguments that agreements into which Mylan entered to block compet- plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter and itors from the market and inflate the prices of variousloss causation with respect to rebates Mylan paid to generic drugs. Defendants again moved to dismiss, andPharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) for the EpiPen the court again granted the motion to dismiss in part.that were conditioned on PBMs declining to reimburse On June 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed a third amended com- for Sanofis Auvi-Q, a competing product. While the plaint, which included additional price-fixing and marketcourt noted that the fact that the EpiPen was part of allocation allegations relating to the alleged price-fixingMylans core business, standing alone, cannot support of 32 generic drugs and market allocation allegationsa strong inference of scienter, it held that several other with respect to seven generic drugs. On July 31, 2019,allegations supported scienter, including that Mylans defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the thirdexecutives were aware of all EpiPen pricing decisions amended complaint. On August 30, 2019, plaintiffs filedand that Mylan engaged in the rebate scheme to force a motion to certify the class. On April 6, 2020, the courtSanofi from the market and inflate the price of EpiPen. granted the motion to dismiss in part and granted theThe court also held that plaintiffs adequately pled loss motion for class certification in full. causation even though the complaint did not identify The court first declined to dismiss plaintiffs Sectiona specific corrective disclosure regarding the anti-10(b) claims based on statements by Mylan that itscompetitive scheme, holding that it was enough that rebate calculations for its MDRP carried risk of errors,plaintiffs alleged that Mylans stock price fell as a result which plaintiffs allege were misleading because theyof public uproar regarding the high price of EpiPen failed to disclose that the company had, in fact, misclas- (which plaintiffs allege was caused by Mylans anticom-sified the EpiPen as a generic drug. In a previous mo- petitive conduct), and fell even further when the FTC tion to dismiss, the court had rejected Mylans argumentannounced that it was investigating Mylan. The court that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter or fal- found that Auvi-Qs removal from the market for product sity. In this most recent motion to dismiss, Mylan argueddefects was irrelevant to the question of loss causation that an intervening change in law demonstrates that thebecause it did not change plaintiffs allegations that MDRP was ambiguous at the time Mylan made the riskanticompetitive conduct occurred and subjected Mylan of error statements. In particular, Mylan argued thatto government investigation.the Right Rebate Act resolved unclear provisions in theThe court granted defendants motion to dismiss plain-MDRP, and that in light of this [c]ongressionally recog- tiffs claims relating to allegations that Mylan committed nized ambiguity, plaintiffs failed to plead facts showingantitrust violations involving 18 generic drugs, which that Mylan knew for certain that the EpiPen was mis- Plaintiffs alleged in support of their securities fraud classified. The court rejected these arguments, in largeclaims. Plaintiffs had alleged that virtually all of Mylans part because of allegations that regulators had explicit- generic drugs were affected by unlawful anticom-ly informed Mylan that the EpiPen was misclassified. petitive conduct, but the court found that plaintiffs 28'