In re DDAVP Antitrust Litigation

33 states investigated “pay for delay” allegations relating to DDAVP, a drug used to alleviate bed-wetting. States alleged that Aventis, holder of the patent for the medication, engaged in a scheme to delay the regulatory approval and sale of a generic version of DDAVP, in violation of state and federal antitrust law. States and defendants entered into a settlement under which states received $3.45 million, not as a civil penalty and defendants did not admit guilt.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

District of Columbia 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.

Read More →

Texas 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.

Read More →

Florida 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.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

District of Columbia v. CVS Corporation et al. (not reported)

The District of Columbia sought injunctive relief, alleging that CVS illegally acquired market power when it purchased Anchor Pharmacy’s customer prescription lists (as well as certain other assets) and secured Anchor’s agreement to exit the market. The District also alleged that, by virtue of the acquisition, CVS monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the local pharmacy market.

Read More →

District of Columbia v. Basiliko, DC, No. 91-2528 (Judge Joyce Hens Green), 9/16/94.

Settlement with and judgments against real estate speculators who rigged bids at public land auctions.

Read More →

District of Columbia v. Marquee Holdings Inc. and LCE Holdings, Inc.

District of Columbia filed a complaint and a proposed stipulated final judgment simultaneously. The complaint alleged that the merger of movie chains AMC and Loews would substantially lessen competition in the District of Columbia. The stipulated final judgment requires the divestiture of one AMC theatre and one Loews theater, and prohibits the defendants from entering into contracts restricting the rights of theater landlords to rent former AMC and Loews theaters to new theater tenants.

Read More →

U.S. v. First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc., 1:03CV02169 (D.D.C. filed 10/23/03)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between First Data Corporation (First Data) and Concord EFS, Inc. (Concord), alleging that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the financial services market.

Read More →