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.
Maryland v. Rite-Aid Corp.
Rite Aid sought to acquire the assets of Canadian company Jean Coutu, which owned the Eckerd and Brooks retail pharmacy chains. Parties agreed to divest 26 stores in seven states.
People ex rel. Spitzer v. Acordia and Wells Fargo (NY Sup. Ct.)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
Connecticut, Illinois & New York v. St. Paul Travelers
Plaintiff states charged St. Paul Travelers with illegal business steering, customer allocation, and bid rigging in the market for small business. The states alleged, and St. Paul Travelers did not deny, that millions of dollars in “contingent commissions” were paid to a number of brokers who “steered” business to St. Paul Travelers. Under the customer allocation scheme, Travelers was one of the insurers (with The Hartford and CNA) who secretly agreed with a broker to divide up the brokers small business customers in exchange for paying greater undisclosed contingent commissions to the broker.
New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Hartford Financial Services Group
Agreement between CT, NY and Hartford in which Hartford agreed to pay $20 million in restitution and fines, and implement reforms designed to bring fair play and transparency to the marketing of retirement products. Agreement resolved charges that insurance companies were making secret payments to insurance brokers to recommend group annuities to pension plans.
New York v. UBS Financial Services
Suit charged UBS with violations of state anti-fraud laws, as well as common law fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty by falsely promoting InsightOne as providing personalized advice and other financial planning services and pushing unsuited customers into InsightOne.
In re Prudential Settlement
Prudential agreed to eliminate the payment of contingent commissions to brokers on group insurance products and provide full disclosure of broker compensation to employers who seek to purchase insurance for their employees through Prudential. Prudential will also provide restitution of $16.5 million to policyholders and pay civil penalties totaling $2.5 million.
New York v. Brown, No. 88-1512, (D.N.J) 721 F.Supp 629 (D.N.J.), summ. judg. den; 721 F.Supp 644 (D. NJ),
The New York Attorney General’s Office brought a suit against New Jersey officials that challenged the constitutionality of a New Jersey regulation that prevented the sale of milk below cost. The regulation was repealed in 1990.
New York v. Tele-Communications Inc., 1993 WL 527984 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1993), 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70, 404
Defendant cable system operators, subsidiaries and a satellite cable supplier formed a monopoly in restraint of trade in the delivery of multichannel subscription television programming.
New York v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., No. 06 401726, NY S, Ct.
Charges four-year pervasive bid-rigging and anti-competitive customer allocation scheme, in exchange for illegal payments. In 2010, Liberty Mutual agreed to pay $5.5 million to NY and $2 million to Connecticut to settle the allegations.
