United States and Plaintiff States v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:11-cv-00106 (D.D.C., Jan. 18, 2011)

USDOJ and five states challenged the joint venture between Comcast and NBC Universal, alleging that it would harm competition in cable programming, with Comcast controlling NBC and NBCU programming. The parties reached a settlement, and the FCC also reached a separate settlement with Comcast and NBC. The settlements impose a number of restrictions and limitations on the merger to ensure that competing distributors have fair access to NBC and NBCU content. The settlements also address several areas of the joint venture’s operations. The DOJ and states’ settlement particularly focuses on requiring Comcast/NBC to make content available to online video distributors; requires NBC to relinquish all management rights in connection with Hulu.com, a popular video website; and prohibits Comcast from retaliating against content providers who sell to online distributors, entering into exclusive agreements that might limit access to programs, and slowing broadband signals when broadband customers view non-Comcast content.

Read More →

Washington v. AU Optronics, No. 10-2-29164-4 (Super. Ct., King Cty., 2010)

Plaintiff state filed an antitrust action against several major technology companies for illegally fixing prices for liquid crystal display (“LCD”) screens used in computers, televisions, and cell phones. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered from 1998 to 2006 by Washington and other public purchasers that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties on behalf of the state and as parens patriae for state consumers.
After decisions declining to allow the defendants to remove the cases to federal court under CAFA, and affirming the state’s jurisdiction over foreign corporations, the state reached settlements with the defendants totalling $63 million. Defendants also agreed to future monitoring and to implementing antitrust compliance programs.

Read More →

United States and Plaintiff States v. Election Systems and Software, Inc. No. 10-cv-00380 (D.D.C. 2010)

The U.S. Department of Justice and nine plaintiff states filed suit against Election Systems and Software, Inc.’s (“ES&S”) acquisition of Premier Election Solutions, Inc. (“Premier”). ES&S, the largest provider of voting systems in the United States, acquired Premier, a subsidiary of Diebold, Inc. and the second largest provider of voting equipment systems. The acquisition was well under the HSR reporting thresholds. After this acquisition, ES&S provided more than 70 percent of the voting equipment systems used in elections held in the United States. The complaint alleged that because ES&S’s acquisition of Premier joined the two closest competitors in the provision of voting systems, it was likely that states and local governments would have seen higher prices and a decline in quality and innovation in voting equipment systems.
The states and USDOJ reached a settlement with ES&S under which ES&S will sell Premier’s intellectual property for all past, present and in-development voting equipment systems to another competitor. The buyer will have the ability to compete for contracts to install new voting systems using the Premier product. ES&S is prohibited for 10 years from competing for new
installations using a Premier product. The buyer will also receive copies of all existing
Premier service contracts so that it can compete for contracts that are up for renewals.

Read More →

Washington v. Vashon Brokers Association, No. 95-2-06071-4 (Super Ct. King Cty. 1995)

The defendant operated a multiple listing service. The defendant established rules which fixed commission rates for both the listing and sales agent. Complaint and consent decree was filed in state court with injunctive provisions and costs.

Read More →

In the Matter of Settlement Agreement with U.S. Bancorp.

U.S. Bancorp acquired all assets and branch offices of West One Bancorp. The settlement agreement required that U.S. Bancorp divest within 180 days designated branch offices including their assets and loans.

Read More →

In the Matter of Memorandum of Understanding with : Sisters of Providence and Health, Hospital Services

Sisters of Providence, owner of St. Joseph Hospital, entered into an agreement to purchase St. Luke’s Hospital. The two hospitals located in Bellingham represent the only inpatient facilities located in Bellingham or Whatcom County. The merger was allowed with conditions as to service and competition.

Read More →

Washington v. Providence/Everett General

: Everett General, a large non-profit hospital, merged with Providence Hospital operated by Sister of Providence. A settlement agreement was negotiated which tied price increases to inflation and included non-discrimination clauses.

Read More →

Washington v. Okanogan Listing Exchange

The defendant operated a multiple listing service (?MLS?). The defendant established rules which fixed commissions rates for both listing and sales agents. Real Estate agents who failed to comply with the rules were prohibited from accessing the MLS service. Complaint and consent decree was filed in state court, enjoining future violations

Read More →

Washington v. Inland Northwest AGC

Inland AGC is a trade association composed of construction firms doing business in eastern Washington. The construction industry along with Inland AGC were upset regarding contract language (mandatory arbitration and/or apportionment of risk) used in public works contracts. The association initiated a group boycott urging association members not to bid on public works projects until the contract provisions were removed from the public works contracts. Complaint and consent decree were filed with injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Read More →

Washington v. Herff Jones, et. al

The defendants were competitors selling yearbooks to schools throughout Washington. The defendants conspired to set prices and allocate the market for yearbooks in Washington. A complaint requesting injunctive relief and restitution was filed on behalf of Washington consumers. A Consent Decree was filed providing consumer restitution, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

Read More →