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.
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.
Florida v. Ryan E. Phillips et al., Case No. 2006-CA-1986-C, Okaloosa Cty. Cir. Ct.
Florida settled allegations of price fixing in northwestern part of the state after price-gouging investigation revealed that gasoline station owner who sold station conditioned the sale on new owner matching prices as original owners station.
Florida v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, Nos. 86-55609 and 87-0531 (S.D. Fla. 1988)
Florida sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant, Waste Management, Inc. of Florida and certain of its former officers and employees engaged in a conspiracy with competitors to allocate the contracts for waste collection and disposal services for the state, its departments, agencies and units of government in Dade and Broward County, Florida.
In re Healthcare Research and Development Institute LLC
Investigation led by CT AG into certain anticompetitive behavior carried out by HRDI in the healthcare service and supply industry and the use of undue and improper influence in the healthcare purchasing process. HRDI agreed to dissolve, but it is permitted to reorganize with only health care executives as members. HRDI also must pay Connecticut $150,000.
Florida v. Hernando County Association of Travel Professionals, Inc., No. 99-1535-CA-01 (5th Jud. Cir. Hernando Cty., Fla. 2000)
As part of a negotiated settlement, the State of Florida sought civil penalties and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant travel agencies entered into contracts, combinations and conspiracies to charge their customers “transaction fees” for certain services; raised, fixed, stabilized and maintained the amounts of such fees; and regulated and limited the types and amount of advertising by any of them in the BellSouth Yellow Pages.
Florida v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.(1994)
This settlement agreement was entered into by the State of Florida and Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) as a supplement to the consented Final Judgment reached in United States, State of Florida, and State of Maryland v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. This settlement agreement addresses the collection and disposal of MedX’s or BFI’s Medical Waste, and addresses Residential Contracts with public entities.
Florida v. Power Lighting Systems, Inc. (11th Jud Cir., Dade County, FL 1992)
The State of Florida sought injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant, Power Lighting Systems, Inc. conspired to fix prices in connection to Florida Project Number BR-658. As a result of the allegations, Howard Kosowky, an officer and shareholder of the company agreed to testify to the merits of the allegations in order to resolve the dispute without costly litigation expense.
Florida v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach, Inc., No. 89-26839 (17th Judi. Cir. Broward County,Fla. 1991)
Florida sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that The Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach, Inc. (Pepsi) conspired with the Coca Cola Bottling Company of Miami, Inc. (Coke) to establish a floor for wholesale prices of some soft drink products sold in Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties, Florida.
Davis et al. and Florida (intervening) v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., No. 89-2839-CIV (S.D. Fla. 1991)
Florida intervened in the Davis v. Southern Bell action, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties, alleging that Southern Bell Telephone Company (Southern Bell) monopolized the inside wire maintenance and other optional service markets and overcharged subscribers; that Southern Bell’s marketing for certain optional services contained misrepresentations, that Southern Bell billed certain customers for optional inside wire maintenance plans and other optional services which customers did not know they had or did not know were optional.
