Connecticut v. Danilow Pastry Co., Inc., No. CV 83-028-7470 (Conn. Super Ct., Hartford Dist. 1983)
Following USDOJ criminal investigation, wholesale bakeries were enjoined from fixing prices and exchanging prices of various baked goods. Conspiracy impacted Connecticut and New York market area.
Connecticut v. Auto-Time, No. CV-83-290265 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist.1983)
The exclusive New England distributor of Seiko branded watches was enjoined from engaging in resale price maintenance, following complaints of dealer terminations
Connecticut v. Mobilia, Inc. No. CV-81-0065134 (Conn. Super. Ct. New London Dist.)
Owner of mobile home park engaged in unlawful tying arrangement by conditioning the lease of rental site on the lessee’s agreement to purchase a mobile home from the park owner.
In the Matter of USI Consulting Group
State alleged kickback scheme by pension plan broker, who was paid by insurers for access to potential business. Broker agreed to injunctive relief changing its practices and $470,000.
In the Matter of Independent Connecticut Petroleum Ass’n Inc.
State alleged that heating oil dealers, throught their trade association, conspired to boycott the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program, which helps pay for heating oil for low-income consumers. The boycott was intended to raise the reimbursement rate for heating oil provided by participating dealers. According to the state, the trade association urged the dealersnot to participate in the program. The settlement prohibited future agreements seeking to increase the reimbursement rates, required the association to establish an anittrust compliance program and notify the AG of its compliance with the settlement for 10 years.
Florida et al. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 1:08-cv-00155-SLR (D.Del. 2007)
States alleged Abbott Laboratories; Fournier
Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier, S.A., blocked competition from less expensive
generics by continuously making minor changes in the formulations of TriCor to prevent therapeutically equivalent generic substitutions. The states alleged that the product switches helped thwart generic competition, allowing the companies to charge monopoly prices for TriCor.
The lawsuit also allegd the companies used patents, which they obtained by deceiving the Patent and Trademark Office and improperly enforced and brought a series of patent infringement lawsuits against two generic companies. According to the complaint, Abbott and Fournier filed at least ten lawsuits against two generic companies who were attempting to obtain FDA approval for their generic versions of TriCor. Abbott and Fournier eventually lost or dismissed all of the lawsuits. As a result of the product switches and patent litigation, Abbott and Fournier have successfully thwarted generic competition and denied consumers and state agencies the choice of a lower priced therapeutically equivalent generic.
The states settled their claims for $22.5 milion, which covered governmental purchases, as well as injunctive relief to prevent “product hopping” by the defendants in the future.
Connecticut v. Connecticut Chiropractic Ass’n et al. (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford March 25, 2008)
State alleged that members of both trade groups, spurred on by their leadership,
illegally agreed to boycott Anthem Health Plans, Inc.’s intention to form a new network for chiropractic services that would be administered by American Specialty Health Networks, Inc. (ASH). Hirtle (longtime counsel to CCA) facilitated the conspiracy by aggressively urging chiropractors to opt out
of the proposed network. Chiropractors feared that the ASH contract would lower reimbursement rates for chiropractic services. The state alleged that the illegal boycott improperly influenced the rates paid to
chiropractors; raised chiropractic costs for Anthem; and deprived Anthem, ASH
and consumers of the benefits of competition among chiropractors. Under the settlements, the CCA, CCC and Hirtle have agreed to pay civil penalties to the state, as well as adopt several measures to prevent future anticompetitive practices.
Connecticut v. Reiner, Reiner & Bendett
Plaintiff state alleged that Reiner, a law firm, which also sells title insurance, used sham service, rental and other agreements to
conceal $142,200 in kickbacks and unlawful inducements between 2002 and 2005. In exchange, Absolute and Access allegedly steered title insurance business to the law firm. Connecticut law prohibits title insurance agents from paying for referrals.
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.
Connecticut v. Acordia (Super. Ct. Hartford Jud. Dist.)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
