FTC and Plaintiff States v. Amgen, No. 23-CV-3053 (N.D. Ill. 06/22/23)
Plaintiff states joined the Federal Trade Commission’s suit against Amgen’s planned $28 billion purchase of Horizon Therapeutics. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking Amgen Inc. and its subsidiaries from completing the proposed acquisition. Horizon Therapeutics PLC makes the only U.S. FDA-approved treatment for thyroid eye disease, Tepezza, and the only FDA-approved…
Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff States and Citibank (June 2018)
Forty-two plaintiff states reached a $100 million settlement with Citibank for fraudulent conduct involving interest rate manipulation that had a significant impact on consumers and financial markets around the world. UBS’ fraudulent conduct involved the manipulation of LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions…
Utah et al. v. Google LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05227 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021)
Thirty-seven states filed a lawsuit against Google for monopolizing the smartphone application market in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, Google operates a web of exclusionary agreements with phone manufacturers and carriers to exert control over app distribution on Android phones through its Google Play Store. By leveraging those anticompetitive…
Alabama et al. v. Endo International, No. 3:19-cv-04157 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019)
Eighteen states reached a settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. under which Endo paid $2.3 million to settle allegations it entered into a reverse-payment agreement to obstruct generic competition to Lidoderm, a pain relief patch frequently used to treat shingles. According to the complaint, Endo had an agreement with Watson Laboratories Inc. ensuring Endo would not face…
Minnesota v. Tim Amdahl Chevrolet Co., No. K5-93-0677 (Winona Cty. Dist. Ct.)
Auto body repair shops conspired to fix prices by providing sham estimates on competitors’ letterhead.
Minnesota v. Walz Buick Oldsmobile GMC, Inc.,, No. K9-93-0679 (Winona Cty Dist. Ct.)
Defendant auto body repair shop fixed prices by providing sham estimates on competitors’ letterhead.
Minnesota v. Sugar Loaf Ford Lincoln Mercury Inc., No. K7-93-0678,
Defendants were sued criminally and civilly for scheme through which they provide sham estimates for body work.
Minnesota v. Nystrom Motors, Inc., No. K5-93-0680 (Winona Cty. Dist. Ct. 1993)
Auto body shops agreed to provide false estimates for body work to be provided to auto insurance companies.
New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al., No. 1:19-cv-5434 (S.D.N.Y.)
States challenged merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the third and fourth-largest mobile telecommunications providers in the U.S., alleging that shrinking the national wireless carrier pool down from four to three providers would decrease competition and create higher prices for consumers. The US Department of Justice and seven states entered into a settlement with the parties…
Settlement Agreement Between States and Five Guys Franchisor LLC
Fourteen states investigated “no-poach†agreements (clauses, often contained in franchise agreements, which prevent workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions). The states settled with four national fast food franchisors, Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, who agreed to cease using “no-poach†agreements that restrict the rights of fast food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Under the terms of the settlements, the franchisors will stop including no-poach provisions in any of their franchise agreements and stop enforcing any franchise agreements already in place. The franchisors have also agreed to amend existing franchise agreements to remove no-poach provisions and to ask their franchisees to post notices in all locations to inform employees of the settlement. Finally, the franchisors will notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another location under an existing no-poach provision. Since the investigation began, Wendy’s provided confirmation that it never used no-poach provisions in their contracts with franchisees. Investigations into Burger King, Popeyes, and Panera continue.
