As part of its ongoing participation in the ongoing Automotive Parts multidistrict litigation, California reached a settlement with Denso to resolve claims that as part of a conspiracy with dozens of auto parts manufactures, competition in the automotive parts market was suppressed and eliminated by illegal bid rigging. The state’s complaint alleged that Denso had…
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.
Merger of two clinical laboratories in California
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.
Supplier of radiology services offered to divide markets with radiologist who was bidding on contracts to supply radiology services to California prisons.
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.
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
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.
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 nothingâ€ 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.