Cox ex rel. Michigan v. Arctic Glacier Int’l, No. 10-1050-CP (30th Jud. Cir. Ingham Cty. 2010)
After companies pleaded guilty to federal criminal price-fixing, Michigan alleged that between 2001 and 2007 Arctic Glacier and Home City Ice conspired to reduce competition between the two ice manufacturers in the southeast Michigan market. The companies allocated geographic territories and customers between themselves, lessening competition and potentially resulting in higher prices
for consumers. The companies agreed to pay $740,000 ($350,000 from Arctic Glacier and $390,000 from Home City) in the form of penalties.
Washington v. AU Optronics, No. 10-2-29164-4 (Super. Ct., King 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.
After decisions declining to allow the defendants to remove the cases to federal court under CAFA, and affirming the state’s jurisdiction over foreign corporations, the state reached settlements with the defendants totalling $63 million. Defendants also agreed to future monitoring and to implementing antitrust compliance programs.
Missouri v. AU Optronics Corp., (N.D. Cal. pending transfer to MDL 1827, 2010)
Following guilty pleas to criminal price-fixing by several LCD manufacturers, and a conviction after trial of another, plaintiff states filed suit against LCD manufacturers, alleging that top executives of several companies held numerous secret meetings from at least 1999 through at least 2006 for the purpose of exchanging information and setting prices on LCD panels. According to the complaint, companies such as Dell, Apple, and Hewlett Packard were among those targeted by the manufacturers’ price-fixing scheme. According to the lawsuit, the illegal overcharges were ultimately borne by state consumers and state government purchasers. The suit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and state antitrust statutes. The first settlement covered Chimei Innolux, Chimei Optoelectronics, Hannstar, Hitachi, Samsung, and Sharp and their subsidiaries. The second settlement, for $543.5 million, was with AU Optronics, Toshiba and LG Display and subsidiaries.
New York v. AU Optronics
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 1996 to 2006 by New
York State and other public purchasers – local governments, schools, hospitals,
and colleges, among others – that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties. Consolidated with other litigation in an MDL in the Northern District of California. See Missouri v. AU Optronics
Florida v. AU Optronics
Plaintiff state filed suit against the world’s largest manufacturers of thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display panels, or “TFT-LCD panels,” alleging the companies conspired
to fix the prices of their products. The civil lawsuit, filed in federal district court in California, alleges that the defendants conspired to prevent competition and to increase prices for TFT-LCD panels, the most common form of LCD panels used in popular electronic devices such as desktop monitors, laptop screens, and flat panel televisions.
The state alleges that the defendants organized the conspiracy at the highest level of their organizations in various secret meetings and telephone conversations over a period of years. The United States Department of Justice has indicted a number of the defendants and their employees in the same federal court, resulting in more than $890 million in criminal fines. The lawsuit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. claims the companies violated the Florida Antitrust Act, the Sherman Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, civil penalties and costs.
U.S. and Idaho v. Idaho Orthopaedic Society, No. 10-268 (D. Idaho, May 28, 2010)
Plaintiffs alleged that orthopedic doctors gained more favorable fees and contractual terms by agreeing to coordinate their actions, including denying medical care to injured workers covered by the State Insurance Fund and patients covered by Blue Cross. The settlement prevents the orthopedists from agreeing with their competitors on fees and contract terms. The settlement also prohibits the settling orthopedists from collectively denying medical care to patients, refusing to deal with any payor, or threatening to terminate any contract with a payor.
U.S., Illinois, Colorado and Indiana v. AMC Entertaininment Holdings, No. 10-cv00846 (D.D.C. 2010)
AMC, a movie theater chain operates 304 U.S. theaters housing 4,574 screens, most
of which are located in megaplexes operates Kerasotes ShowPlace Theatres operates 96 movie theaters with 973 screens in the United States, mostly in the Midwest. USDOJ and the plaintiff states challenged the acquisition of Kerasotes by AMC on the grounds that it would reduce competition in markets in Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. To resolve the case, AMC agreed to divest eight theaters–four in Illinois, two in Colorado and two in Indiana.
Oregon ex rel. Myers v. Monem, No. 07c17510 (Ore. Cir. Cty, Marion Cty. 2007)
Defendant Monem was employed by state Dept. of Corrections as purchaser of food. Monem accepted bribes from several food wholesalers to purchase food for the prison system. USDOJ sought civil forfeiture of some of defendants’ assets. State brought state RICO, bribery and antitrust claims. Judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $4,556,103 and property held by corporations they had set up was sold in partial judgment on that claim.
Attorney General of Florida v. ASAP Meds No. 04-16032 (09) (Fl. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty. Oct. 27 2004)
State brought price-gouging action against distributor of flu vaccine during a flu vaccine shortage. The distributor’s prices were allegedly 1000 percent of the actual price of the vaccine. Defendant agreed to consent order enjoining it from sales of the vaccine and turned its supply of vaccine over to the Florida Department of Health. Several months later, the state and the defendant entered into a settlement under which the defendant agreed to refrain from intentionally making false statements to consumers relating to how much of a given drug is in stock, how quickly it is being sold and how long the current supply will last. In addition, the company paid $150,000 for a training and educational program for at-risk youth and $71,000 to be used to assist pharmacies that were affected by Meds-Stat’s activities.
Kansas v. Meds-Stat (
Plaintiff state sued Flrida vaccine firm , Meds-Stat,alleging the company planned to sell flu vaccine at prices almost 1,000 percent higher than the original list prices in the wake of the U.S. flu vaccine shortage.
The settlement required Meds-Stat to affirm the company sold no vaccine in the state at exorbitant prices, reimburse the state for costs of the investigation as well as legal fees and expenses, and assist the state in identifying problems in the vaccine distribution network to prevent future price gouging.
