The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) found on 20 November 2024 that Pfizer and Flynn abused their dominant positions through excessive pricing of phenytoin sodium capsules, an epilepsy drug, between 2012 and 2016, and imposed combined fines of £69 million. In its judgment, the CAT set aside the Competition and Markets Authority's 2022 remittal decision but re-made the decision itself, finding infringements on 7 of the 8 counts originally found by the CMA.
Competition Appeal Tribunal Imposes £69 Million Excessive Pricing Fines in Phenytoin Case
By The Corporate INTL Newsroom · 21 November 2024
According to the CMA, the CAT found that the firms intentionally abused their dominant positions and characterised their pricing as unfair. The fines it imposed were almost identical to the CMA's, save for a 1% reduction to Pfizer's fine. The CMA had fined the companies £63,300,000 and £6,704,422 respectively in 2022.
The excessive pricing findings
The CMA's decision found that between 2012 and 2016 Pfizer's prices for the capsules rose by 780% to 1,600%, and that the combined prices charged by the two firms were between 2,300% and 2,600% higher than those previously charged. NHS annual spending on phenytoin capsules rose from £2 million in 2012 to about £50 million the following year.
The CAT agreed with most of the firms' grounds of appeal against the CMA's reasoning, including on the approach to calculating a reasonable rate of return, the assessment of unfairness and the procedure followed, but still concluded that the Chapter II prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 had been infringed.
A long-running case
The CMA's original 2016 decision was partly set aside by the CAT and remitted. After the Court of Appeal in March 2020 dismissed Flynn's appeal and upheld aspects of the CMA's appeal on the legal test for unfair pricing, the CMA re-investigated and issued its remittal decision in July 2022. The CAT heard the appeals against that decision in November and December 2023.
What it means
The judgment confirms that excessive pricing remains enforceable under UK competition law, including for off-patent medicines, even where the tribunal disagrees with the regulator's method. The CMA said it agrees the pricing was abusive and that significant fines are appropriate, but disagrees with the CAT's findings and reasoning on its decision and is considering whether to appeal. Suppliers of niche or genericised products in concentrated markets should keep pricing decisions and cost justifications well documented.
Sources
Looking for legal or business advice?
Tell us what you need and the Corporate INTL team will help you find the right lawyer or adviser from our members in 150+ jurisdictions.