Flynn Pharma and Pfizer v CMA (phentoin sodium capsules) (Court of Appeal) [Archived]
Flynn Pharma and Pfizer v CMA (phentoin sodium capsules) (Court of Appeal) [Archived]

The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Flynn Pharma and Pfizer v CMA (phentoin sodium capsules) (Court of Appeal) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related cases

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 10 March 2020; it is no longer maintained.

See further, timeline,commentary and related cases.

Case facts

OutlineAppeal by the Competition and Markets Authority against the CAT’s judgment quashing the CMA’s infringement decision of 12 February 2016 fining Pifzer Inc and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited for charging unfair and excessive prices for phenytoin sodium capsules, contrary to Article 102 TFEU and Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998.

Latest developmentsOn 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in which it rejected the CMA’s arguments to reinstate the fines. However, it found that the CAT made legal errors in its analysis of the CMA’s excessive pricing decision against Pfizer Inc and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited.

Parties• Appellant: Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

• Respondents: Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Limited (together Pfizer).
• Flynn Pharma Limited and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited (together Flynn).

Pfizer Inc is a global pharmaceutical company which is headquartered in New York. It produces medicines and vaccines for a wide range of medical conditions. Its subsidiary in the UK directly involved with the sale of phenytoin sodium capsules is Pfizer Limited.

Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited is a specialised UK-based (headquartered in Stevenage) pharmaceutical company which acquires and commercialises branded products for the

Popular documents