People v. Donald Sherwin, C030485 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d App. Dist.)8/15/00)

State indicted defendants on conspiracy to rig bids for supplying foodstuffs to state, undermining state’s small business preferences and perjury. After defendants’ motion for suppression of evidence was granted, case was dismissed.

Read More →

California v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, No. CV-03-1358 MMM (C.D. Cal. 2003)

Merger of two clinical laboratories in California

Read More →

Smith Food & Drug Centers, Inc. Settlement Agreement

Smiths Food & Drug Centers, Inc. exited California market and sought antitrust review of proposed sales of supermarket sites to other supermarket operators. The sale of 18 stores to various supermarket operators were approved. Smiths? agreed to obtain prior approval or provide prior notice of future sales of sites to supermarket operators for a period of 5 years.

Read More →

People v. Omnimed Medical Services, et al

Supplier of radiology services offered to divide markets with radiologist who was bidding on contracts to supply radiology services to California prisons.

Read More →

Save Mart Supermarkets Settlement Agreement

Acquisition of supermarkets

Read More →

California v. Safeway, et al. ,No. CV-04-0687-GHK

Challenge to a revenue sharing plan by four supermarket employers to share revenues based on fixed market share and fixed profit percentage during and after a labor dispute involving three of these employers.

Read More →

California, Nevada, New Mexico v. Albertson’s, Inc., and American Stores Company

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between Albertson’s Inc. (Albertson’s) and American Stores Company (American Stores), alleging that the merger would substantially impair competition in the supermarket industry and could result in price increases and decreases in the quality and selection of food, groceries and
services.

Read More →

California v. Quality Food Centers, 98 CV 01101 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 1998)

Challenge to proposed merger involving Ralphs Grocery Company (owning both Ralphs Markets and Food 4 Less markets) and Hughes Markets. Case settled by divestiture of 19 stores in 7 areas in southern California.

Read More →

California ex rel. Becerra v. Sutter Health, No. 18-565398

State sued Sutter Health, the largest hospital system in northern California, alleging that Sutter engaged in anticompetitive behavior in violation of the Cartwright Act by 1) establishing, increasing and maintaining Sutter’s power to control prices and exclude competition; 2) foreclosing price competition by Sutter’s competitors; and 3) enabling Sutter to impose prices for hospital healthcare services and ancillary products that far exceed the prices it would have been able to charge in an unconstrained, competitive market. The complaint alleges that Sutter did this by: Preventing insurance companies from negotiating with it on anything other than “all or nothing†system-wide basis, requiring health insurers under the terms of contract with Sutter Health to negotiate with all the Sutter Health system or face termination of their contract; Preventing insurance companies from giving consumers more low-cost health plan options, for example, charging a $200 out-of-pocket cost for an outpatient surgery performed by a facility outside of the preferred group and $100 for outpatient surgery performed by a facility inside the preferred group; Setting excessively high out-of-network rates for patients who must seek care outside of their provider network; Restricting publication of provider cost information and rates. The complaint alleged three causes of action under the Cartwright Act: price tampering and fixing; unreasonable restraint of trade; and combination to monopolize. The state sought injunctive relief, disgorgement and attroneys fees.

Read More →

State of California v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-03281 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

California agreed to four settlement agreements with pharmaceutical companies to resolve claims that they entered into collusive “pay-for-delay agreements.â€
The state argued that Teva delayed entry of generic competition through four pay-for-delay agreements that illegally maintained its monopoly over Provigil sales between 2006 and 2012. This resulted in artificially high costs of Provigil for consumers. The state secured $69 million for California and a 10-year injunction prohibiting Teva from entering into pay-for-delay agreements. As part of the $69 million settlement, a $25,250,000 consumer fund will be created for California residents who purchased Provigil, Nuvigil or Modafinil during this time.
The state also argued that Teva, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Teikoku entered into pay-for-delay agreements regarding Lidoderm, a medical patch to relieve shingles pain. In June 2019, the state settled with Endo Pharmaceuticals, securing an eight-year injunction against further pay-for delay agreements and payment of $760,000. The settlement also included a 20-year injunction against Teikoku, a partner in the production of Lidoderm with Endo.

Read More →