Skip to Main Content

Terence S. Ziegler

Partner

D   610.822.2205
F   610.822.2205

Terence S. Ziegler is a partner at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, L.L.P. where he has worked since 2005.  Since joining the Firm, he has focused his practice on antitrust and complex consumer litigation.  Terence is currently involved in a number of class action lawsuits against large pharmaceutical manufacturers in antitrust cases alleging improper reverse payment and generic suppression schemes.

Terence also served as a special assistant attorney general to several states in litigation involving the sales and marketing practices of major pharmaceutical companies.  These cases led to important injunctive relief and significant monetary recovery for those states. 

Terence’s extensive experience in complex cases also includes consumer class actions alleging improper insurer and lender practices in violation of RICO and RESPA.

Examples of Terence’s recent notable cases include In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation ($150 million settlement on behalf of direct purchasers); In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litigation ($21.5 million settlement on behalf of end-payors); Alston v. Countrywide, et al. ($34 million settlement on behalf of borrowers); and Ligouri v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al. ($12.5 million settlement on behalf of borrowers).

Terence received his bachelor’s degree from Loyola University in 1989.  He earned his juris doctor from Tulane University in 1992.  He is a member of the Pennsylvania and Louisiana bars and is admitted to practice in several federal district and appellate courts across the country.

Speaking Engagements

Harris Martin’s Antitrust Pay for Delay Litigation Conference, September 22, 2014

Experience

Current Cases

  • Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging that, having pursued and lost patent infringement litigation against would-be generic competitors as well as exhausting every regulatory means to prevent and delay the launch of generic competitors, Amarin adopted an unlawful strategy to artificially extend its monopoly for it sole product Vascepa. By locking up every viable supplier of the key ingredient needed to manufacture generic Vascepa, Amarin boxed generic manufacturers out of the market. This scheme left Amarin free to continue charging supracompetitive prices and obtain the most profit it could out of Vascepa, at the expense of the Plaintiffs and other purchasers of the drug.

Publications

“Fighting the high cost of healthcare,” Trial Magazine (October 2007)