Oregon v. Travelers Companies (Multnomah County Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Massachusetts v. Travelers Companies (Suffolk Superior Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Connecticut v. Guy Carpenter & Co., No. HHD-CV-07-40433778 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. 2007)
Plaintiff state alleged a series of conspiracies within the reinsurance industry, principally led by broker Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC, to fix prices and terms on reinsurance contracts purchased in Connecticut and throughout the United States and to mislead primary insurance company clients regarding Guy Carpenter?s role as an agent and underwriter for numerous reinsurance companies. Complaint alleges that Guy Carpenter conspired with numerous reinsurers to fix prices and output, foreclose competitors from access, allocate markets and eliminate competition in the reinsurance market.
California v. Infineon Technologies, No. 3:06-cv-04333 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2007)
33 Plaintiff States generally alleged a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
market for dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), carried out by numerous manufacturer defendants. Samsung an
another company, Winbond, reached settlement for $113 million in 2007.. States and private parties settled with the remaining defendants for $173 million and injunctive relief.
Connecticut v. Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.No. CV-83-0284039 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford 1983)
Owner of residential apartment complexes was enjoined from conditioning the rental of an apartment unit of the lessee?s agreement to purchase moving services or remodeling services from the lessor.
Connecticut v. Girard Motor Sales, Inc. et. al., No. CV-82-282822 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1983)
Automobile dealership charged with various unfair trade practices and an antitrust violation was enjoined from, among other things, conditioning the purchase of a motor vehicle on the buyer?s agreement to purchase automotive towing services.
Connecticut, et al. v. BL Makepeace, Inc., et al., No. 79-642 (D.Conn.)
Retail vendors of architectural, engineering and drafting supplies, equipment and blueprint services settled Attorney General?s claims of price fixing and unlawful market allocation via entry of a consent decree which prohibited such conduct and payment of a monetary forfeiture.
New York v. UBS Financial Services
Suit charged UBS with violations of state anti-fraud laws, as well as common law fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty by falsely promoting InsightOne as providing personalized advice and other financial planning services and pushing unsuited customers into InsightOne.
In re Prudential Settlement
Prudential agreed to eliminate the payment of contingent commissions to brokers on group insurance products and provide full disclosure of broker compensation to employers who seek to purchase insurance for their employees through Prudential. Prudential will also provide restitution of $16.5 million to policyholders and pay civil penalties totaling $2.5 million.
Davis et al. and Florida (intervening) v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., No. 89-2839-CIV (S.D. Fla. 1991)
Florida intervened in the Davis v. Southern Bell action, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties, alleging that Southern Bell Telephone Company (Southern Bell) monopolized the inside wire maintenance and other optional service markets and overcharged subscribers; that Southern Bell’s marketing for certain optional services contained misrepresentations, that Southern Bell billed certain customers for optional inside wire maintenance plans and other optional services which customers did not know they had or did not know were optional.
