Alabama et al. v. Endo International, No. 3:19-cv-04157 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019)
Eighteen states reached a settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. under which Endo paid $2.3 million to settle allegations it entered into a reverse-payment agreement to obstruct generic competition to Lidoderm, a pain relief patch frequently used to treat shingles. According to the complaint, Endo had an agreement with Watson Laboratories Inc. ensuring Endo would not face…
Washington v. Starkist Company, No. 20-2-09491-9 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. June 2, 2020)
Plaintiff state filed a civil lawsuit against Starkist, one of the world’s largest canned tuna manufacturers and the former CEO of Bumble Bee Foods, another large tuna manufacturer, over a price-fixing conspiracy that drove up the cost of packaged tuna for more than a decade. The suit alleged that StarKist Co., its parent company Dongwon,…
Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff States and UBS (Dec. 21, 2018)
Forty plaintiff states reached a $68 million settlement with UBS for fraudulent conduct involving interest rate manipulation that had a significant impact on consumers and financial markets around the world. UBS’ fraudulent conduct involved the manipulation of LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions…
Attorney General v. Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, LLC (Fl. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty., Apr. 30, 2020)
Florida reached a multimillion-dollar agreement with one of the largest oncology medical practices in Florida to resolve state antitrust and consumer protection concerns. The proposed consent decree with Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, LLC follows a civil antitrust investigation into whether the health care provider entered into illegal agreements with competitors that allocated geographic…
In re: TC Denver Development, Inc., Colo. AG Assurance of Discontinuance (Apr. 25.2020)
The Colorado AG’s office investigated whether Trammell Crow, acting as the City and County of Denver’s program manager for its Convention Center expansion project, and its former employee, Michael Sullivan, improperly exchanged confidential information about the project and procurement process with Mortenson Company that they did not share with other prospective bidders. (See entry on…
FTC et al. v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, No. 1:20-cv-00706 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2020)
The FTC, New York and six other states filed suit against Vyera Pharmaceuticals, its parent company, Phoenixus, and its former officers, Kevin Mulleady and Martin Shkreli in 2020, alleging anticompetitive conduct in connection with Daraprim, the only FDA approved drug for the treatment of the life-threatening parasitic disease toxoplasmosis. The suit alleged that Vyera purchased…
In re: Mortenson Company Assurance of Discontinuance (Colo. Apr. 13, 2020)
Colorado attorney general entered into Assurance of Discontinuance with general contractor M. A. Mortenson Company to resolve claims resulting from the attorney general’s investigation into an alleged bid-rigging scheme related to the City and County of Denver’s plans to upgrade and expand the Colorado Convention Center. The office’s investigation centered on whether Mortenson violated the…
In the Matter of Invesigation of Hornblower Group, Inc., AOD no. 19-103
An attorney general’s investigation of the dining cruise market in New York Harbor indicated that Hornblower Group, Inc. had obtained dominance in New York City’s dining cruise market through its acquisition of Entertainment Cruises. The investigation also confirmed that while other already-existing dining cruise operators wished to expand their operations into New York City, they…
New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al., No. 1:19-cv-5434 (S.D.N.Y.)
States challenged merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the third and fourth-largest mobile telecommunications providers in the U.S., alleging that shrinking the national wireless carrier pool down from four to three providers would decrease competition and create higher prices for consumers. The US Department of Justice and seven states entered into a settlement with the parties…
Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Beshear v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP, No. 3:15-cv-00354 (May 12, 2015)
State filed suit against Marathon, alleging Marathon engaged in anti-competitive practices that lead to higher gas prices for Kentucky consumers in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. State alleged that Marathon abused its monopoly position after its merger with Ashland Oil in 1998. The state alleged, among other actions, that Marathon requires some retailers, thought its supply agreements, to purchase 100 percent of their RFG from Marathon, with penalties if the retailers fail to do so. The agreements also prohibit unbranded retailers from challenging Marathon’s pricing. According to the complaint, Marathon further reduces competition by adding deed restrictions to some of the property parcels it sells that prohibit the purchaser of the property from selling gas or operating a convenience store. Some of the restrictions have an exception that will allow for development of a gas station if the station sells only Marathon gas. State sought injunctive relief, civil penalties of $2000 per violation, restitution to citizens and to the state and attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to disqualify the outside counsel retained by the state on the grounds that the contingent fee arrangement was improper. The court denied Marathon’s motion to dismiss as to the federal antitrust, state antitrust and deceptive practices claims, but denied the state’s unjust enrichment claim because consumers only conferred an indirect benefit on Marathon by buying gasoline at allegedly inflated prices, not a direct benefit.
