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.
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.
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.
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.
In the Matter of Big Y Foods, No. 03-1983-E (Super. Ct. of Mass, Suffolk Cty. April 25, 2003)
State expressed concern about sale of supermarkets in Western Massachusetts to major competitor. Big Y agreed to use same pricing for new stores as it did for all stores in the area, agreed to use its best efforts to sell the supermarket sites for use as supermrkets.
In the Matter of Harvard Communicty Health Plan, Inc. and Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., No. 95-0331 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Jan. 18, 1995)
State had concerned about proposed merger of two large HMOs in eastern Massachusetts
In the Matter of Baycare Health Partners, Inc., No. 94-5653 (Superior Court of Mass., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 4, 1994)
State was concerned about contractual provisions in proposed Phyisician Hospital Organization (PHO) which would require participating physicians to bring new contract opportunities with health plans to the PHO first.
Connecticut v. Suiza Foods Corp., 3:01-cv-01178-AWT (D.Conn. 6/25/2001)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.
Vermont and New Hampshire v. Suiza Foods Corp., No. 2:01-CV-194 (D.Vt. 2002)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.
U.S. and Texas, et al v. Oracle, Corporation, No.C-04 0807 (JCS )(N.D.Cal.2005)
Merger review of two of the most dominant vendors of high function Human Resource Management software and high function Financial Management Services software.
