Generic-drug makers sought to defeat a bid to certify proposed classes comprising thousands of pharmacies that indirectly purchased and resold generics at the center of sprawling price-fixing litigation, telling a Pennsylvania federal court Monday that certification would result in an "unmanageable trial."

In a 66-page, partially redacted memorandum, drugmakers including Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and Teva Pharmaceuticals argued that differences between the pharmacies' purchasing and reimbursement practices rendered their claims inappropriate for class certification. The drugmakers are accused in the multidistrict litigation of a conspiracy to anticompetitively raise the price of the cholesterol medication pravastatin.

"There is no 'one-size-fits-all' pathway from an alleged list-price increase to a pharmacy's net cost, and no uniform answer to whether any pharmacy bore any net overcharge," the memorandum said. "These individualized issues predominate and preclude class certification."

The drugmakers' memorandum opposes certification of two classes of privately held pharmacies that purchased defendants' pravastatin products from May 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2018.

Proposed by five named plaintiff pharmacies, one class would cover pharmacies across the U.S. seeking injunctive relief against any continued effects from the alleged conspiracy. The other class would cover pharmacies seeking damages under state and territorial laws across 47 jurisdictions in connection with their drug purchases. Plaintiffs estimated the classes would contain thousands of members.

"For years, purchasers had no meaningful ability to avoid the economic harm caused by a coordinated scheme that distorted competition in the pravastatin market and forced resellers and purchasers to pay artificially inflated prices for a widely prescribed generic drug," Christian Hudson, an attorney for the indirect reseller plaintiffs, said in a Monday statement. "We are hopeful the court will recognize the importance of allowing this case to move forward on behalf of all those harmed, so they can pursue justice collectively and recover damages from years of unlawful overcharges."

But plaintiffs cannot show that alleged overcharges are common across class members because list prices are not a reliable indicator of what pharmacies ultimately paid for pravastatin products, the drugmakers argued in their memorandum.

Such a determination would depend on issues specific to each pharmacy such as negotiation prices, reimbursement formulas, customer mixes and individualized contracts, according to the drugmakers.

"Plaintiffs here do not and cannot establish, through evidence common to the class, that both alleged upstream overcharges were passed through from wholesalers to each class member; and that any such overcharges were not further passed on (in whole or in part) through reimbursements and pricing to the ultimate payors," the memorandum said.

The drugmakers also argued that plaintiffs' proposed nationwide class in particular fails because plaintiffs didn't show a likelihood of future injury that would warrant injunctive relief.

"The allegedly unlawful conduct occurred more than a decade ago, those alleged to have engaged in the misconduct have long since left the employ of the defendants, and certain defendants have fully complied with their [deferred prosecution agreements] that have now been dismissed," the drugmakers said, adding later that plaintiffs' "failure to follow through on their claims for injunctive relief confirms their case is about money."

Last year, the Pennsylvania federal court certified several sets of classes concerning other generic drugs at issue in the MDL. Drugmakers are challenging that decision before the Third Circuit.

Counsel for the drugmakers did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The indirect reseller plaintiffs are represented by Christian Hudson, Alexandra Klein, Jennifer E. Kelly, Claire Esmonde and Charles Barrett of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

The drugmakers are represented by Colin R. Kass, David A. Munkittrick, Bradley I. Ruskin, Grant J. Esposito, David Fioccola, Christopher Ondeck, Bart Williams and Kyle Casazza of Proskauer Rose LLP, Meg Slachetka of Competition Law Partners, Robert W. Manoso, Dimitra Doufekias and Michael B. Miller of Morrison & Foerster LLP, Sheron Korpus, Seth A. Moskowitz and Seth Davis of Kasowitz LLP and Jason Parish, Bradley J. Kitlowski and Caroline Bassett Warren of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

The MDL is In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL number 2724, and In Re: Pravastatin Cases, lead case number 2:16-md-02724, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.