Arizona v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcrae Association
Arizona and USDOJ alleged that hospital trade association fixed the price of nursing services from temporary nursing agencies as participaitng hospitals, which comprised 80 percent of hospital beds in Phoenix and Tucson. Inunctive relief prohibiting conduct and implementing compliance program.
State of Colorado et al v. Warner Chilcott, 1:05-cv-02182 (D.D.C.2005)
34 states filed suit alleging that Warner Chilcott entered into an illegal agreement with Barr Pharmaceuticals to raise the prices of Ovcon, an oral contraceptive. The lawsuit alleged that after Barr Pharmaceuticals publicly announced that it planned to have a generic version of Ovcon on the market by the end of the year, Warner Chilcott paid Barr Pharmaceuticals $1 million for an agreement designed to prevent Barr’s generic product from coming to market. Under the terms of the alleged agreement, once Barr received FDA approval to market generic Ovcon, Warner Chilcott had 90 days to pay Barr $19 million, after which Barr would refuse to bring the cheaper generic version to the market. The lawsuit alleged that as a result of the agreement, Warner Chilcott paid Barr a total of $20 million to keep it from marketing its generic version of Ovcon. In additon to a payment of $5.5 million, the settlement prohibits Warner Chilcott, for ten years, from entering into any agreement that would have the effect of limiting the research, development, manufacture, or sale of a generic alternative to one of its drugs. Furthermore, Warner Chilcott must provide the states notice of certain agreements it has entered into with generic manufacturers, and must continue to make its records available to the states for inspection to determine whether the company is complying with the terms of the agreement.
U.S. and Arizona v. Delta Dental Plan of Arizona
Joint US/Arizona settlement with statewide dantal plan to eliminate most favored nation clause from contract with participating dentists
In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL-150; 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,925 (C.D. Cal. 1992)
In 1973, The States of Florida and Connecticut sued several named petroleum companies in each individual state’s federal court. The States alleged that the companies conspired to raise or stabilize prices for refined oil products and they continually engaged in the mutual exchange of pricing and price-related information. Further, the States alleged that the Defendants conspired to create an artificial scarcity of crude and refined oil and that the oil companies conspired not to compete in bidding on plaintiffs annual bulk sale petroleum supply contracts. California, Arizona, Washington and Oregon also sued
Arizona v. M.D. Optical Co., 1986-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,346 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1986)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, M.D. Optical Co. established bylaws that set the prices for which ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians sold their goods and provided their services.
Arizona v. Arizona Pre-Paid Eye Care, Inc.; 1986-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,345 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1986)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Pre-Paid Eye Care established bylaws that set the prices for which ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians sold their goods and provided their services.
Arizona v. Arizona Podiatry Association, 1985-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,487
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Podiatry Association maintained a code of ethics provision restricting members form of advertising and solicitation of patients
Arizona v. Arizona Radiological Society; 1979-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 62,683
State sought injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Radiological Society established bylaw and policy statements requiring members to work only on a fee-for-service basis.
Arizona v. Arizona State Psychological Association; 1988-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,928 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1988)
The Plaintiff State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona State Psychological Association restrained members from truthful advertising and non-coercively soliciting clients
Arizona v. Chiropractic Association of Arizona, 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,737 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1985)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant Chiropractic Association maintained a code of ethics provision restricting members form of advertising and solicitation of patients.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
