Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Geisinger Health System Foundation et al., No. 4:CV-12-1081 (M.D. Pa.
State alleged that the the acquisition of Bloomsburg Hospital by Geisinger Heath System Foundation may substantially lessen or eliminate competition in the region. Geisinger is a non-profit parent of four hospitals, including its flagship Geisinger Medical Center which is located only 10 miles from Bloomsburg Hospital. It also owns the Geisinger Clinic, a multi-specialty physician group practice with more than 900 primary care and specialty physicians and the Geisinger Heath Plan. Geisinger is one of the largest providers of inpatient acute-care hospital services in northeastern Pennsylvania. The state was concerned that Geisinger would be able to raise prices for hospital and physician services to Columbia County residents and their health plans. The parties reached a settlement under which Geisinger agreed to continue to operate Bloomsburg Hospital as an acute care hospital for eight years, six years longer than the term agreed to by the parties. The agreement also requires that all physicans with privileges at Bloomsburg Hospital will keep their privileges. The original merger agreement with the Bloomsburg Board only protected certain physicians. Geisinger also agreed to negotiate and contract with health plans for Bloomsburg Hospital separately from Geisinger Medical Center. Bloomsburg Hospital historically had lower rates than Geisinger Medical Center. By contracting separately, Bloomsburg’s rates will be comparable to other community hospitals, not a large tertiary hospital like Geisinger.
Pennsylvania v. Geisinger Medical Center, No. 344 MD 2011 (Pa. Comm. Ct. July 26, 2011)
State challenged merger on the grounds that it could lessen competition for primary or secondary acute care hospital services sold to Medicare plans and primary and non-tertiary physician services in Northumberland County, PA.
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. AT&T, No. 11-01560 (D.D.C, 2011)
AT&T sought to acquire T-Mobile. The transaction would have combined two of the only four wireless carriers with nationwide networks. US DOJ and six states filed suite to block the merger. The parties abandoned the merger three months later.
Pennsylvania v. Twin Ponds, Inc., No. 2010-CV-11677 (Ct. Comm. Pleas, Dauphin Cty Penn. Sept. 10, 2010)
Two ice skating rinks operated in the Harrisburg Pennsylvania area. The owners entered into an agreement under which one ice house would melt its ice and provide only indoor roller skating and indoor soccer services. State filed suit, charging market allocation and violation of the prohibition against monopolies. Settlement included permanent injunction voiding market allocation agreement and restrictive covenant that prevented property from being used as a skating rink. Defendants paid $65,000, to be used as a settlement fund to support youth hockey in Dauphin County and to reimburse the state for its costs.
United States et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. 1:10-cv-00139(D.D.C. 2010)
U.S. and 17 states sued to enjoin merger of Ticketmaster, the nation’s largest ticketing services company, and Live Nation, the nation’s largest concert promoter.
According to the Complaint, the parties announced their merger shortly after Live Nation had entered the concert ticketing business as Ticketmaster’s closest competitor. The complaint alleged that consumers and major concert venues would
face higher ticket service charges as a result of the merger
The settlement requires the merging parties to license its ticketing software to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG). AEG is the nation’s second largest promoter and the operator of some of the largest concert venues in the country. The merging parties are further required to divest Ticketmaster’s entire Paciolan business, which provides a venue-managed platform for selling tickets through the venue’s own web site. Paciolan is to be divested to Comcast/Spectacor, a sports and entertainment company with a management relationship with a number of concert venues. Comcast also has ticketing experience through its New Era ticketing company.The settlement also prohibits the merging parties from retaliating against venue owners who contract with the merging parties’ competitors.
In re Marsh & McLennan
Plaintiff states alleged that Marsh, an insurance broker, made collusive arrangements whereby brokers entered into agreements with insurers to receive undisclosed compensation and engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for commercial liability insurance. March agreed to reveal all commissions paid, and to pay the states $7 million.
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Republic Services
Two of the three largest waste hauling companies in the U.S. sought to merge. The United States and plaintiff states reached a settlement under which the parties would divest 11 landfills, 8 waste transfer stations and numerous routes within the plaintiff states.
Pennsylvania v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (W.D. Pa)
State entered into a consent decree with University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to remedy anticompetitive concerns with acquisition of Mercy Medical Systems in Western Pennsylvania.
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.
Pennsylvania v. ACE Limited
Plaintiff state reached a settlement with ACE Limited in connection with ACE’s involvement with other insurers and brokers in a scheme to rig bids for excess casualty insurance. These illegal business practices occurred between 2000 and early 2004. In addition to the bid-rigging tactics, ACE also paid “contingent commissions,” which are payments that insurers pay to brokers and agents in addition to their base commissions. In exchange for the “contingent commissions,” brokers agreed to steer policies for excess casualty to ACE and increased premiums on existing policies. The agreement requires ACE to reform its business practices. Ace will now disclose to any client, who asks how much it is paying in compensation to a broker or non-exclusive agent on that client’s insurance business and will etablish a toll-free telephone number that policyholders can request disclosure of compensation information.
