California et al. v. Teikoku Seikayu Co.(Lidoderm), No. 3:18-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal. 01/31/18)
Plaintiff states alleged that defendant, the producer of Lidoderm (pain medication), paid or incentivized generic drug makers to delay entry into market to protect its monopoly on Lidoderm. (“pay for delay”) The settlement agreement, which expires in twenty years, prohibits Teikoku from entering into agreements that restrict generic drug manufacturers from researching, manufacturing, marketing, or selling products for a period of time and requires Teikoku to cooperate in an ongoing investigation into similarly anticompetitive conduct by other drug manufacturers, among other things.
State of California ex rel. Becerra v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., No. 17-cv-00562 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2017)
Plaintiff state filed complaint alleging violations of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. the complaint alleged an anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreement with respect to the Lidoderm pain relief patch. According to the complaint, Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. colluded with its competitors and fixed the price of the generic version of the drug.
Watson, which subsequently was acquired by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., allegedly agreed to settle a patent infringement suit with its competitor Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., which was the only producer of the name-brand pain relief patch. Pursuant to the agreement, Endo agreed to allow Watson to sell branded Lidoderm at no cost, if Watson agreed to hold off on its release of a generic version of the drug. Then, when Watson released its generic version, Endo did not release its own generic version for nearly eight months, the suit claims.
According to the complaint, “The threat of generic entry to Lidoderm posed significant financial risks for the company,†and “Endo knew that generic competition would decimate its Lidoderm sales and that any delay in generic competition would be highly profitable for Endo, but very costly for consumers.â€
California settled with Endo for a $760,000 payment (not characterized as attorneys’ fees or civil penalties) and an eight-year injunction preventing future pay-for-delay conduct.
California v. Valero Energy Corp., No. C17-03786 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017)
Plaintiff state sought to enjoin proposed purchase by Valero of two petroleum storage and distribution terminals owned by Plains in Martinez and Richmond, California. The complaint has been filed under seal. The court denied the state’s request for a TRO, but held that the state had a likelihood of success on the merits. The parties abandoned the transaction.
FTC and Plaintiff States (CA and DC) v. Draft Kings, No. 17-cv-01195 (D.D.C. 2017)
States and the FTC sued to block the merger of the two largest daily fantasy sports sites, alleging that the combined firm would control more than 90 percent of the US market for paid daily fantasy sports contests. Plaintiff states and the FTC allege that the defendants compete with each other on price and quality.
The State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. CGC-11-515784, Calif. Superior Court, San Fran. Cty. Nov. 8, 2011
California sued makers of CRTs alleging they were part of a price-fixing scheme that resulted in overcharges in the price of products that contained CRTs, such as televisions and computer monitors. The alleged price fixing scheme occurred between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007. According to the complaint, the conspiracy involved top-level meetings of key executive decision-makers in Asia and Europe to set prices and outputs of CRTs. It also involved worldwide meetings among lower-level executives to exchange confidential information. The settlements, which were filed in San Francisco Superior Court, require all five companies to pay a total of $4.95 million to settle claims of overcharges paid by California government entities, general damages suffered by the State’s economy, and civil penalties. The settlements require that the companies pay back the illegally obtained profits to those affected by their actions. In addition, the settlements include injunctive relief, which requires that each company engage in company-wide antitrust compliance training and reporting that involves products in addition to CRTs and extends to foreign companies and subsidiaries. Finally, the settlements include requirements, enforceable by the court via fines and imprisonment, to prevent future violations of antitrust law. There was a parallel class action by indirect purchasers nationwide that was brought in federal court by private parties. The state worked with the private plaintiffs and a settlement agreement was reached, under which California consumers recovered damages.
State of California v. T.Rad Co. Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-13199 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2016)
California filed a complaint and settled with T.Rad Co, a maker of automobile radiators and automatic transmission fluid warmers, alleging that the company rigged bids and fixed the prices of its parts from at least 2002 to 2010. California received $162,500 in damages and attorneys fees and Florida received $81,250.T.RAD agreed to cooperate with the states by providing documents and information related to the investigations into the price fixing conspiracy.
State of Wisconsin et al. v. Indivior, No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22,2016)
Plaintiff states alleged that the makers of Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, engaged in a scheme to block generic competitors and raise prices. Specifically, they are conspiring to wtich Suboxone from a tablet version to a flim in order to prevent or delay generic entry. The states allege that the manufacturers engaged in “product hopping” in which a company makes slight changes to its product to extend patent protections and prvent generic alternatives. The complaint was filed under seal.
California v. Panasonic Corporation, No. 2:16-cv-14117 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2016)
California sued Panasonic Corp. and its U.S. arm in Michigan federal court, alleging that the electronics company conspired to fix prices of switches and other car parts. The state alleged that from at least July 1998 to February 2010, the electronics company conspired with other companies to fix prices for various switches in vehicles, high-intensity-discharge lamp ballasts and steering angle censors, resulting in increased costs for state agencies purchasing cars and parts, along with increased costs for the state�s consumers. The complaint charged the companies with violations of both federal and California antitrust laws, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and alleged that the deadweight losses to the economy of the state, including reduced output, higher prices and reduction in consumer welfare. The complaint was filed to effectuate a settlement between California and Florida and Panasonic that had been reached in 2015. California received $350,000 and Florida received $187,500 and Panasonic provided the states with all documents and information from the investigations by USDOJ, the EU and Japan and documents provided to class counsel in the multidistrict litigation.
United States et al. v. Anthem et al., No. 1:16-cv-01493 (D.D.C., July 21, 2016)
The US and plaintiff states sued to block the merger of two of the country’s largest health insurers. The complaint alleges that their merger would substantially reduce competition for millions of consumers who receive commercial health insurance coverage from national employers throughout the United States; from large-group employers in at least 35 metropolitan areas, including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver and Indianapolis; and from public exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act in St. Louis and Denver. The complaint also alleges that the elimination of Cigna threatens competition among commercial insurers for the purchase of healthcare services from hospitals, physicians and other healthcare providers. According to the complaint, the merger would eliminate substantial head-to-head competition in all these markets, and it would remove the independent competitive force of Cigna, which has been a leader in the industry’s transition to value-based care. the court granted the injunction. Anthem appealed to the DC Circuit, which affirmed the district court.
In re Blue & Gold and Red & White Fleets Merger, Cal. PUC applications No. 95-12-071 (approved June 11, 1997)c
Challenge to merger of tour boats of San Francisco Bay resolved by divestiture of ships, a dock and signage.
