People v. Independent Inspections, No. 99-CF-1369
The defendants operated businesses that conducted inspections of flammable and combustible liquid storage tanks. The tank inspections were required under federal law. The complaint alleged that in anticipation of submitting bids for new contracts, the defendants agreed not to compete for business in each other’s territories in order to avoid a bidding war. Independent Inspections, Ltd. (99-CF-1369) agreed to refrain from bidding on any petroleum tank inspection contracts with State of Wis until April 13, 2002; found corporation guilty after no contest plea. $500 fine and $40,000 costs.
People v. Haberman, No. 99-CF-1368
The defendants operated businesses that conducted inspections of flammable and combustible liquid storage tanks. The tank inspections were required under federal law. The complaint alleged that in anticipation of submitting bids for new contracts, the defendants agreed not to compete for business in each other’s territories in order to avoid a bidding war. Ronald C. Habermann (No. 99-CF-1368) convicted of Misdemeanor counts of an agreement to injure the business of another; must not participate in any way with petroleum tank inspection contracts with State in the future. $500 fine and $1500 costs
Wisconsin v. Medical Technologies, Inc., No. 93CF857 (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct. filed
Market allocation agreement among distributors of hearing testing equipment, beginning in 1990
Wisconsin vs. Industrial Roofing Services and Edward J. Frac, Case No. 93-CF-0343 and 93-CM-0928, Circuit Court Milwaukee County (June 1993)
The complaint alleged that Frac, acting on behalf of IRS, coordinated the submission of non-competitive bids on two roofing repair jobs
Wisconsin vs. Thomas J. Orlandini and Falls Floor Covering. Circuit Court Milwaukee County, 1994CM411268 (December 1994)
The complaint alleged that Falls and another contractor (Thomas J. Mason) coordinated the submission of complementary bids as prime contractors on two Milwaukee County projects.
Thomas J. Mason, Company, Inc.; Thomas J. Mason; Jeffrey G. Schultz ,Circuit Court Milwaukee County, Case No. F951464 (July 1995)
The complaint alleged that Mason and his company submitted complementary or phony bids on floor covering projects under an agreement with Falls Floor Covering, Inc., a Waukesha flooring company.
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…
California et al. v. Teikoku Seikayu Co.(Lidoderm), No. 3:18-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal. 01/31/18)
Plaintiff states alleged that defendant, the producer of Lidoderm (pain medication), paid or incentivized generic drug makers to delay entry into market to protect its monopoly on Lidoderm. (“pay for delay”) The settlement agreement, which expires in twenty years, prohibits Teikoku from entering into agreements that restrict generic drug manufacturers from researching, manufacturing, marketing, or selling products for a period of time and requires Teikoku to cooperate in an ongoing investigation into similarly anticompetitive conduct by other drug manufacturers, among other things.
State of Wisconsin et al. v. Indivior, No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22,2016)
Plaintiff states alleged that the makers of Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, engaged in a scheme to block generic competitors and raise prices. Specifically, they are conspiring to wtich Suboxone from a tablet version to a flim in order to prevent or delay generic entry. The states allege that the manufacturers engaged in “product hopping” in which a company makes slight changes to its product to extend patent protections and prvent generic alternatives. The complaint was filed under seal.
New York et al. v. Cephalon, No. 2:16-cv-04234 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2016)
In May 2015, the FTC settled a “pay-for-delay” suit against Cephalon for injunctive relief and $1.2 billion, which was paid into an escrow account. The FTC settlement allowed for those escrow funds to be distributed for settlement of certain related cases and government investigations. In August 2016, forty-eight states filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Cephalon alleging anticompetitive conduct by Cephalon to protect the profits it earned from having a patent-protected monopoly on the sale of its landmark drug, Provigil. According to the complaint, Cephalon’s conduct delayed generic versions of Provigil from entering the market for several years. The complaint alleged that as patent and regulatory barriers that prevented generic competition to Provigil neared expiration, Cephalon intentionally defrauded the Patent and Trademark Office to secure an additional patent, which a court subsequently deemed invalid and unenforceable. Before it was declared invalid, Cephalon was able to use the patent to delay generic competition for nearly six additional years by filing patent infringement lawsuits. Cephalon settled those lawsuits by paying competitors to delay sale of their generic versions of Provigil until at least April 2012. Consumers, states, and others paid millions more for Provigil than they would have had generic versions of the drug launched by early 2006, as expected. A settlement was filed with the complaint, which includes $35 million for distribution to consumers who bought Provigil.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
