U.S. and Montana v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, No.
USDOJ and Montana sued to prevent agreement between BCBS of Montana and New West, two of three competitors in the Montana health insurance market. Five of the six hospital owners of New West had agreed to purchase health insurance from Blue Cross exclusively for six years. once the five hospital owners stopped purchasing health insurance from New West, they likely would have significantly reduced their support for New West and its efforts to win commercial health-insurance customers. These anticompetitive effects would have been exacerbated by a provision in the parties’ agreement that requires Blue Cross to give the hospital owners two seats on Blue Cross’ board of directors if the hospitals do not compete with Blue Cross in the sale of commercial health insurance. DOJ and Montana required that New West promptly divest its remaining commercial health-insurance business to an acquirer with the intent and capability to be an effective competitor. The hospital owners must enter three-year contracts with the acquirer to provide health-care services on terms that are substantially similar to their existing contractual terms with New West. At the acquirer’s option, New West and the five hospital owners must also use their best efforts to assign the health-care provider contracts that are not under their control to the acquirer or to lease New West’s provider network to the acquirer for up to three years. Under the proposed settlement, Blue Cross must notify the department and the state of Montana before it uses exclusive contracts with health-insurance brokers, or exclusive or most-favored-nation provisions in its agreements with health-care providers.
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. AT&T, No. 11-01560 (D.D.C, 2011)
AT&T sought to acquire T-Mobile. The transaction would have combined two of the only four wireless carriers with nationwide networks. US DOJ and six states filed suite to block the merger. The parties abandoned the merger three months later.
In re J.P. Morgan Chase (Municipal Bond Derivatives)
Starting in 2008, the states investigated the municipal bond derivatives market, where tax exempt entities like governments and nonprofit organizations issue bonds and reinvest the proceeds until the funds are needed or enter into contracts to hedge interest rate risk on bonds.
The investigation revealed conspiratorial and fraudulent conduct involving individuals at JPMC, other financial institutions, and certain brokers with whom they had working relationships. The states alleged that certain JPMC employees and their counterparts at other institutions rigged bids, submitted noncompetitive courtesy bids and fraudulent certificates of arms-length bidding to government agencies. The misconduct led state and local entities, such as municipalities, counties, school districts and other government agencies, as well as nonprofits, to enter into municipal derivatives contracts on less advantageous terms than they would have otherwise. The $66.5 million multistate settlement is one component of a coordinated settlements (totaling $92 million) between JPMC and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), as well as the states.
Connecticut v. Galante, No. X04-HHD-CV-09-5033841-S (Ct. Super. Ct. Hartford, April 11, 2011)
In 2009, Connecticut sued James E. Galante, former owner of waste disposal companies operating in the Dan bury area, for alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Antitrust Act. The lawsuit alleged that in 2002 and 2004, Galante ordered his employees at AWD and Thomas to raise prices by 10 percent for certain commercial customers under the false representation that they were mandatory increases for disposal-site costs. The lawsuit also alleged two incidents of bid-rigging by American Disposal Services of Connecticut, another Galante-owned company, in attempts to secure waste-hauling contracts. Under terms of the settlement, the state received $600,000 to be distributed to an estimated 500 commercial customers of Galante’s former companies: Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. and Thomas Refuse Services Inc.The settlement was timed to the federal government’s sale of these and other companies forfeited by Galante as part of his 2008 guilty plea to federal racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and wire-fraud conspiracy for his role in orchestrating a scheme to drive up trash-removal prices.
Hawaii v. ACE Holdings, Inc., No. 07-1-2015-10 (Cir. Ct. 1st Cir. Hawaii, Oct. 25, 2007)
Consent decrees filed by states in state court required $4.5 million payment and conduct relief to remedy alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers.
U.S. and Texas v. United Regional Healthcare System, No. 7:11-cv-00030 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 25, 2011)
USDOJ and Texas reached a settlement with United Regional Health Care System of Wichita Falls, Texas, that prohibits it from entering into contracts that improperly inhibit commercial health insurers from contracting with United Regional’s competitors. Plaintiffs alleged that United Regional unlawfully used these contracts to maintain its monopoly for hospital services in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
People of the State of California v. AU Optronics Corp., No. CGC-10-504651 (Super. Ct. San. Fran. Cty. 2010)
Plaintiff state filed an antitrust action against several major technology companies for
illegally fixing prices for liquid crystal display (“LCD”) screens used in computers, televisions, and cell phones. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered from 1998 to 2006 by Washington and other public purchasers that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties on behalf of the state and as parens patriae for state consumers.
United States and Plaintiff States v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:11-cv-00106 (D.D.C., Jan. 18, 2011)
USDOJ and five states challenged the joint venture between Comcast and NBC Universal, alleging that it would harm competition in cable programming, with Comcast controlling NBC and NBCU programming. The parties reached a settlement, and the FCC also reached a separate settlement with Comcast and NBC. The settlements impose a number of restrictions and limitations on the merger to ensure that competing distributors have fair access to NBC and NBCU content. The settlements also address several areas of the joint venture’s operations. The DOJ and states’ settlement particularly focuses on requiring Comcast/NBC to make content available to online video distributors; requires NBC to relinquish all management rights in connection with Hulu.com, a popular video website; and prohibits Comcast from retaliating against content providers who sell to online distributors, entering into exclusive agreements that might limit access to programs, and slowing broadband signals when broadband customers view non-Comcast content.
IN the matter of Wachovia
Wachovia and its successor, Wells Fargo, settled charges by 25 states and several federal agencies (the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Reserve) that it participated in a nationwide scheme to allegedly rig bids and engage in other anticompetitive conduct relating to municipal bond derivatives that defrauded state agencies, local governmental entities and not-for-profit entities. The multistate settlement is part of a $148 million settlement Bank of America entered into simultaneously with the federal agencies.
U.S. and Michigan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 10-14155 (E.D.Mich. 2013)
USDOJ and plaintiff state challenged the use by Blue Cross/BlueShield of Michigan of Most Favored Nation clauses, alleging that their power in the market, combined with these clauses, violated state and federal antitrust law by stifling competition, leading to higher costs, and preventing new entry into the market. After the state legislature enacted a statute prohibiting health insurers from using most-favored-nation clauses in contracts with health care providers, USDOJ and Michigan dismissed the case.
