Texas et al. v. Penguin Group et al., No. 1:12-cv-03394-DLC (S.D.N.Y, Apr. 30, 2012)
TTexas and Connecticut led 33 state group that filed complaint charging three of the nation’s largest book publishers and Apple Inc. with colluding to fix the sales prices of electronic books. The States undertook a two-year investigation into allegations that the defendants conspired to raise e-book prices. Retailers had long sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers, not publishers, set e-book sales prices. The states alleged that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at $12.99 and $14.99. When Apple prepared to enter the e-book market, the publishers and Apple agreed to adopt an agency distribution model as a mechanism to allow them to fix prices. To enforce their price-fixing scheme, the publishers and Apple relied on contract terms that forced all e-book outlets to sell their products at the same price. Because the publishers agreed to use the same prices, retail price competition was eliminated. According to the States’ enforcement action, the coordinated agreement to fix prices resulted in e-book customers paying more than $100 million in overcharges. The States’ antitrust action seeks injunctive relief, damages for customers who paid artificially inflated prices for e-books and civil penalties. Case was filed in W.D. Tex., transferred to S.D.N.Y. as consolidated case. The States reached settlements with the five publishers, which granted E-book outlets greater freedom to reduce the prices of their E-book titles. Consumers nationwide received a total of $164 million in compensation. After entering into settlement agreement with all the Defendant publishers, DOJ and the states had a nearly 3 week trial against Apple in June 2013, during which numerous witnesses took the stand. On July 10, 2013, a decision was handed down in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and the states against Apple. Trial of the damages phase is pending. United States et al. v. Apple, Inc., 12-CV-2826 (S.D.N.Y.).
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.
Texas et al. v. Organon (Remeron), No. 04-5126 (D.N.J. 2004)
Plaintiff states settled with drug maker Organon USA, Inc. and its parent company, Akzo Nobel N.V., resolving antitrust claims involving the antidepressant drug Remeron between June 2001 and October 2004. The states’ complaint alleged that Organon unlawfully extended its monopoly by improperly listing a new “combination therapy” patent with the U.S. Federal Drug Administration. In addition, the complaint alleged that Organon delayed listing the patent with the FDA in another effort to delay the availability of lower-cost generic substitutes. The $26 million settlement resolved claims brought by state attorneys general, as well as a private class action brought on behalf of a class of end payors. Organon also agreed to make timely listings of patents and to submit accurate and truthful information to the FDA.
Richardson v. Akzo Nobel (In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation), 1:09-cv-02112-TFH(D.D.C. 2009)
As part of a private class action lawsuit, states, as parens patriae for their citizens, reached a settlement with vitamin manufacturers accused of fixing prices on certain vitamins (The vitamins affected by this alleged price fixing conspiracy are: vitamin A,
astaxanthin, vitamin B1 (thiamin), vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin B3 (niacin), vitamin B4 (choline chloride), vitamin B5 (calpan), vitamin B6, vitamin B9 (folic acid), vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamine pharma), betacarotene, vitamin C, canthaxanthin, vitamin E, and vitamin H (biotin), as well as all blends and forms of these vitamins) sold purchased between 1988 and 2000. This case is related to the case New York et al. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.,et al. with different defendants.
In re Marsh & McLennan
Plaintiff states alleged that Marsh, an insurance broker, made collusive arrangements whereby brokers entered into agreements with insurers to receive undisclosed compensation and engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for commercial liability insurance. March agreed to reveal all commissions paid, and to pay the states $7 million.
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.
Florida v. Travelers Companies, Inc. (Leon County Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courts. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company’s bid would “win” a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the impression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a “pay-to-play” arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients’ interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Oregon v. Travelers Companies (Multnomah County Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Massachusetts v. Travelers Companies (Suffolk Superior Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Oregon 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.
