Maryland et al. v. Perrigo Company, No. 1:04CV01398 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2004)
The FTC and states alleged that the companies had entered into a “pay-for-delay” arrangement, whereby Perrigo paid Alpharma to withdraw its generic version from the market for Children’t ibuprofen.According to the complaint, in June 1998, Perrigo and Alpharma signed an agreement allocating to Perrigo the sale of OTC children’s liquid ibuprofen for seven years. In exchange for agreeing not to compete, Alpharma received an up-front payment and a royalty on Perrigo’s sales of children’s liquid ibuprofen. The FTC received $6.25 million to compensate injured consumers. The states received $1.5 million in lieu of civil penalties. the parties were enjoined from future agreements.
Missouri v. AU Optronics Corp., (N.D. Cal. pending transfer to MDL 1827, 2010)
Following guilty pleas to criminal price-fixing by several LCD manufacturers, and a conviction after trial of another, plaintiff states filed suit against LCD manufacturers, alleging that top executives of several companies held numerous secret meetings from at least 1999 through at least 2006 for the purpose of exchanging information and setting prices on LCD panels. According to the complaint, companies such as Dell, Apple, and Hewlett Packard were among those targeted by the manufacturers’ price-fixing scheme. According to the lawsuit, the illegal overcharges were ultimately borne by state consumers and state government purchasers. The suit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and state antitrust statutes. The first settlement covered Chimei Innolux, Chimei Optoelectronics, Hannstar, Hitachi, Samsung, and Sharp and their subsidiaries. The second settlement, for $543.5 million, was with AU Optronics, Toshiba and LG Display and subsidiaries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Visa USA, Inc. et al., No. 03-C-551 (Cir. Ct. Ohio Cty. 2003)
The State sued Visa and Mastercard claiming the companies used their market power in general credit cards to force merchants to accept their branded debit cards. The high cost of accepting the branded debit cards forced retailers to charge consumers more for goods purchased. As a settlement, Visa paid $9.3 million and MasterCard paid $2.3 million to state, which was used to fund a tax holiday on Energy Star products, and a total of $600,000 to the Attorney General’s revolving fund.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC et al., No. 04-C-254M (Cir. Ct. Marshall Cty. 2004)
Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit and consent order to settle the lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, and SmithKline Beechham Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drugs, Paxil, Augmentin, and Relafen. Paxil is commonly prescribed for anxiety and depression, Augmentin is an antibiotic, and Relafen is a non-steroidal pain reliever. The State alleged that the defendants had unlawfully attempted to extend their patent protection for the three prescription drugs. After an investigation, the State reached an agreement with the defendants to settle the manner. Under the terms of the settlement, the State received $500,000.00.
Archer v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Roche Vitamins Inc., Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., LTD.; Eisai Co., Ltd; Takeda Chemical Industries, LTD., and Basf Corporation
State intervened in private class action suit following guilty pleas by vitamin manufacturers.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
