Oregon v. Travelers Companies (Multnomah County Court)

Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.

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 →

California v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 01-10895 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2001)

States sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar), arguing that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply and wholesale marketing of gasoline.

Read More →

Oregon, et al. v. Hartzell; 3:96-cv-01783 (D. Or)

This case was based on claims of horizontal price fixing among commercial crab fisherman.

Read More →

Oregon, et al. v. Mulkey; 3:97-cv-00234-MA

Horizontal price-fixing among commercial crab fishermen.

Read More →

Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV, JCCP No. 4221, et al. (Sup. Ct. of Cal., San Diego 2000)

California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington investigated El Paso Corporation and other defendants for conspiring to fix the prices of natural gas. In 2003, a $1.5 billion settlement was reached between El Paso Corporation and California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, other California entities, and various class actions.

Read More →