Company Overview of King Pharmaceuticals LLC
King Pharmaceuticals LLC research and develops, manufactures, markets, and sells branded prescription pharmaceutical products and animal health products worldwide. It offers branded prescription pharmaceuticals, which include neuroscience products, such as Skelaxin, Flector Patch, Avinza, and Embeda; hospital products, including Thrombin-JMI; and legacy products consisting of Levoxyl, Bicillin, Altace, and Cytomel to general/family practitioners, internal medicine physicians, neurologists, pain specialists, surgeons, and hospitals. The company’s animal health business focuses on medicated feed additives and water-soluble therapeutics, which are anti-infective products primarily for poultry, ...
501 Fifth Street
Bristol, TN 37620
Founded in 1993
Key Executives for King Pharmaceuticals LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
President of Alpharma Animal Health
Executive Vice President and President of Meridian
Executive Vice President of Commercial Strategy and Business Development
Executive Vice President of Quality
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2013.
King Pharmaceuticals LLC Key Developments
King Pharmaceuticals LLC to Pay $2.2 Million Civil Penalty
Jun 29 13
King Pharmaceuticals LLC will pay $2.2 million and take measures to comply with the Clean Air Act to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facility located in Bristol, Tenn., announced the Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). From the $2.2 million civil penalty, $1.1 million will be paid to the United States and $1.1 million will be paid to TDEC. From TDECs $1.1 million penalty, $650,000 will be applied to a TDEC state project for homeowners. The settlement also requires the facility to demonstrate compliance with CAA National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals Production (PharmaMACT regulations) and to apply for a Title V permit.
SigmaPharm Sues Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Jan 6 12
The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a developer of pharmaceutical drugs lacked antitrust standing to sue pharmaceutical marketers for entering into an anticompetitive agreement even if it was a per se violation of the antitrust laws. SigmaPharm Inc. and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. entered into a 'development agreement' granting Mutual certain rights in future 'innovations' developed by SigmaPharm in exchange for payments from Mutual. Innovations were inventions, improvements or enhancements to Mutual's pharmaceutical products developed by SigmaPharm for which Mutual secured a patent or which Mutual otherwise deemed to be an innovation. The development agreement stated Mutual 'shall be the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to the Innovations in the United States market.' Likewise, it stated SigmaPharm 'shall remain the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to the Innovations in all markets other than the United States market.' Subsequently, SigmaPharm sued Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The complaint alleged Mutual and King entered into an agreement 'to restrict the output of, and thereby to raise the price of, pharmaceutical products that are bioequivalent to' muscle relaxant SKELAXIN, which was owned and marketed by King. SigmaPharm claimed this agreement was a horizontal restraint of trade in violation of 1 of the Sherman Act, Pennsylvania common law barring restraint of trade, and California statutes barring unlawful and unfair competition. The complaint also asserted that Mutual breached its contract with SigmaPharm by failing to pay SigmaPharm 25% of the revenues it received from King pursuant to the allegedly unlawful agreement. SigmaPharm's complaint sought injunctive and monetary relief, including treble damages under the federal antitrust laws. The defendants moved to dismiss arguing SigmaPharm's pleadings failed to adequately allege antitrust injury, a necessary component of antitrust standing. The district court found that SigmaPharm had failed to adequately plead antitrust injury and dismissed that count of the complaint without prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. SigmaPharm appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. SigmaPharm lacked antitrust standing since it was neither a consumer nor a competitor in the relevant market. Moreover, SigmaPharm did not adequately plead that its injuries were the means by which the defendants sought to achieve their anticompetitive ends. SigmaPharm alleged it was injured by the claimed anticompetitive agreement because it did not receive royalties. However, according to the Third Circuit, this did not mean they had pled antitrust injury even if the alleged anticompetitive conduct was a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Ultimately, the question comes down to whether the injury alleged is of the type that the antitrust statute was intended to forestall. The Third Circuit concluded, based on its precedent, that Congress, in enacting the federal antitrust laws, did not intend to prevent losses like those SigmaPharm alleged: loss of a contractually agreed upon profit-share in a product manufactured and sold by a market-participant.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|