Texas v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. D-1-GN-17-003749, (Travis.Cty. Dist. Ct., 261st Judicial Dist. Aug. 3, 2017)
Plaintiff state reached a settlement with dental supply company concerning an illegal group boycott in the dental supply market. The settlement prohibits Henry Schein Dental from engaging in similar unlawful conduct. Texas settled a similar suit with Benco Dental Supply Company in 2015. The state’s antitrust action stemmed from a three-year investigation into allegations that Schein and two of its competitors worked together to thwart the entry of a lower-cost, online source of dental supplies provided by the Texas Dental Association (TDA). The state alleged that Schein and others colluded to discourage distributors and manufacturers from working with the TDA and its business partner, and agreed not to attend the TDA’s annual trade show in 2014.Under the settlement, Henry Schein Dental is prohibited from participating in anticompetitive activities in the future and must institute additional antitrust training for the company. Schein will pay $300,000 to reimburse the state for investigative costs and attorneys’ fees.
Texas v. Benco Dental Supply Company, No. D-1-GN-15-001386 (Travis Cty. Dist. Ct. April 9, 2015)
Plaintiff state alleged that Benco, a dental supply company, and its competitors worked together to thwart the entry of a lower cost, online source of dental supplies provided by the Texas Dental Association. The State alleged that Benco and others colluded to discourage distributors and manufacturers from working with the TDA and its business partner and agreed not to attend the TDA’s annual trade show in 2014. The State’s agreement with Benco requires Benco not to participate in such anticompetitive activities in the future and institutes an antitrust training program for the company. Benco has also agreed to pay $300,000 to reimburse the Attorney General for investigative costs and attorneys’ fees in lieu of any civil penalty.
U.S. and Arizona v. Delta Dental Plan of Arizona
Joint US/Arizona settlement with statewide dantal plan to eliminate most favored nation clause from contract with participating dentists
Washington v. Washington Dental Service, 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,716 (King County Super. Ct. 1997)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Washington Dental Service (WDS) maintained “Most Favored Nation Clauses” in its dentist agreements which require that a participating dentist’s fee for any given procedure used as a basis for payment of WDS claims shall not exceed the lowest fee which the dentist charges or offers to or receives from any person or dental plan.
Ohio v. Alliance Dental Society, 1976-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,944 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas 1976)
State sought damages and permanent injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants, Alliance Dental Society and its member doctors, entered agreements to create or carry out restrictions in the trade and commerce of providing dental service to persons receiving assistance from the Ohio Department of Public Welfare.
