District of Columbia v. ACE Holdings, Inc.

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.

Read More →

Texas v. ACE Holdings, Inc.

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.

Read More →

Florida v. ACE Holdings, Inc.

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.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

Texas v. American International Group Inc., No. D-1-6v-08-000197 (98th Dist. 2007)

Ten states resolved claims that AIG, an insurer, had participated in a bid-rigging scheme run by Marsh McLennan, an insurance broker.

Read More →

In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (Augmentin)

States alleged that GlaxoSmithKline fraudulently obtained patent protection for Augmentin and then delayed generic entry through sham patent litigation. Through this conduct, GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully maintained its monopoly over Augmentin. A $3.5 million multistate settlement for state proprietary claims was entered into by the participating states and GlaxoSmithKline.

Read More →

In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation

States sued manufacturer of antidepressant Relafen, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled the state proprietary claims for $10 million.

Read More →

Texas v. Zurich American Insurance Company (In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lit. (D.C. No. 04-cv-05184, D.N.J.)

Zurich settled claims involving payment of contingent commissions and submission of false bids for insurance coverage.

Read More →

Maryland v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 2:06-cv-01298-JP (E.D.Pa Mar. 27, 2006)

States sued manufacturer of antitdepressant Paxil, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled for $14 million.

Read More →

Hawaii v. Hawaii Society of Anesthesiologists, 1981-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 64,164 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1981). h

Plaintiff State sought an injunction, alleging that Defendant, Hawaii Society of Anesthesiologists conspired to set the prices for the services of member anesthesiologists.

Read More →