California v. Quality Food Centers, 98 CV 01101 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 1998)
Challenge to proposed merger involving Ralphs Grocery Company (owning both Ralphs Markets and Food 4 Less markets) and Hughes Markets. Case settled by divestiture of 19 stores in 7 areas in southern California.
State of California v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-03281 (E.D. Pa. 2019)
California agreed to four settlement agreements with pharmaceutical companies to resolve claims that they entered into collusive “pay-for-delay agreements.â€
The state argued that Teva delayed entry of generic competition through four pay-for-delay agreements that illegally maintained its monopoly over Provigil sales between 2006 and 2012. This resulted in artificially high costs of Provigil for consumers. The state secured $69 million for California and a 10-year injunction prohibiting Teva from entering into pay-for-delay agreements. As part of the $69 million settlement, a $25,250,000 consumer fund will be created for California residents who purchased Provigil, Nuvigil or Modafinil during this time.
The state also argued that Teva, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Teikoku entered into pay-for-delay agreements regarding Lidoderm, a medical patch to relieve shingles pain. In June 2019, the state settled with Endo Pharmaceuticals, securing an eight-year injunction against further pay-for delay agreements and payment of $760,000. The settlement also included a 20-year injunction against Teikoku, a partner in the production of Lidoderm with Endo.
Washington v. LG Electronics (Philips settlement), No. 12-2-15842 (King Cty Super. Ct., Wash. June 14, 2018
The state alleged that Philips participated in an unlawful conspiracy with other CRT manufacturers(including LG< Panasonic, Hitachi, Chungwha, Toshiba and Samsung, to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Cathode Ray Tubes at artificially high levels and to maintain the quantities of CRTs at artificially low levels, in violation of Washington's consumer protection and antitrust statutes. The state alleged this conspiracy continued from 1995 to 2007.The lawsuit alleges Philips representatives attended secret meetings with other companies, known internally as "glass meetings,†in which they agreed to fix prices of CRTs. For example, the companies agreed to artificially restrict supply to keep prices high and share information with competitors regarding capacity, production, prices and customer demands for CRTs.According to the lawsuit, conspirators split the glass meetings into three tiers: "top meetings†for high-level company executives, "management meetings†for mid-level managers, and "working-level meetings†for lower-level sales and marketing employees. Philips attended meetings at all three levels. The lawsuit alleges the companies' scheme allowed them to keep CRT prices high, even as liquid crystal display, or LCD, screens were introduced to the market. Philips no longer produces CRTs. Philips agreed to pay $7 million to recompense Washington consumers.
Washington v. LG Electronics (Samsung settlement), No. 12-2-15842 (King Cty Super. Ct., Wash. June 14, 2018
The state alleged that Samsung participated in an unlawful conspiracy with other CRT manufacturers(including LG, Panasonic, Hitachi, Chungwha, Toshiba and Philips, to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Cathode Ray Tubes at artificially high levels and to maintain the quantities of CRTs at artificially low levels, in violation of Washington’s consumer protection and antitrust statutes. The state alleged this conspiracy continued from 1995 to 2007.The lawsuit alleges Samsung representatives attended secret meetings with other companies, known internally as “glass meetings,†in which they agreed to fix prices of CRTs. For example, the companies agreed to artificially restrict supply to keep prices high and share information with competitors regarding capacity, production, prices and customer demands for CRTs.According to the lawsuit, conspirators split the glass meetings into three tiers: “top meetings†for high-level company executives, “management meetings†for mid-level managers, and “working-level meetings†for lower-level sales and marketing employees. Samsung attended meetings at all three levels. The lawsuit alleges the companies’ scheme allowed them to keep CRT prices high, even as liquid crystal display, or LCD, screens were introduced to the market. Samsung no longer produces CRTs. Philips agreed to pay $7 million to recompense Washington consumers.
Settlement Agreement Between States and Five Guys Franchisor LLC
Fourteen states investigated “no-poach†agreements (clauses, often contained in franchise agreements, which prevent workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions). The states settled with four national fast food franchisors, Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, who agreed to cease using “no-poach†agreements that restrict the rights of fast food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Under the terms of the settlements, the franchisors will stop including no-poach provisions in any of their franchise agreements and stop enforcing any franchise agreements already in place. The franchisors have also agreed to amend existing franchise agreements to remove no-poach provisions and to ask their franchisees to post notices in all locations to inform employees of the settlement. Finally, the franchisors will notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another location under an existing no-poach provision. Since the investigation began, Wendy’s provided confirmation that it never used no-poach provisions in their contracts with franchisees. Investigations into Burger King, Popeyes, and Panera continue.
Settlement Agreement Between States and Little Caesar Enterprises Inc.
Fourteen states investigated “no-poach†agreements (clauses, often contained in franchise agreements, which prevent workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions). The states settled with four national fast food franchisors, Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, who agreed to cease using “no-poach†agreements that restrict the rights of fast food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Under the terms of the settlements, the franchisors will stop including no-poach provisions in any of their franchise agreements and stop enforcing any franchise agreements already in place. The franchisors have also agreed to amend existing franchise agreements to remove no-poach provisions and to ask their franchisees to post notices in all locations to inform employees of the settlement. Finally, the franchisors will notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another location under an existing no-poach provision. Since the investigation began, Wendy’s provided confirmation that it never used no-poach provisions in their contracts with franchisees. Investigations into Burger King, Popeyes, and Panera continue.
Settlement Agreement Between States and Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
Fourteen states investigated “no-poach†agreements (clauses, often contained in franchise agreements, which prevent workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions). The states settled with four national fast food franchisors, Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, who agreed to cease using “no-poach†agreements that restrict the rights of fast food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Under the terms of the settlements, the franchisors will stop including no-poach provisions in any of their franchise agreements and stop enforcing any franchise agreements already in place. The franchisors have also agreed to amend existing franchise agreements to remove no-poach provisions and to ask their franchisees to post notices in all locations to inform employees of the settlement. Finally, the franchisors will notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another location under an existing no-poach provision. Since the investigation began, Wendy’s provided confirmation that it never used no-poach provisions in their contracts with franchisees. Investigations into Burger King, Popeyes, and Panera continue.
Settlement Agreement Between States and Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
Fourteen states investigated “no-poach†agreements (clauses, often contained in franchise agreements, which prevent workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions). The states settled with four national fast food franchisors, Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, who agreed to cease using “no-poach†agreements that restrict the rights of fast food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Under the terms of the settlements, the franchisors will stop including no-poach provisions in any of their franchise agreements and stop enforcing any franchise agreements already in place. The franchisors have also agreed to amend existing franchise agreements to remove no-poach provisions and to ask their franchisees to post notices in all locations to inform employees of the settlement. Finally, the franchisors will notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another location under an existing no-poach provision. Since the investigation began, Wendy’s provided confirmation that it never used no-poach provisions in their contracts with franchisees. Investigations into Burger King, Popeyes, and Panera continue.
California v. TRW, No. 2:18-cv-13286 (E.D. Mich.) filed 10/22/18
State alleged, as part of multidistrict litigation of antitrust claims against auto parts manufacturers, that TRW conspired with other parts manufacturers to rig bids for, fix and maintain the price of Occupant Safety Restraing Systems, installed in cars purchased by the state.State alleged violations of Sherman Act sec. 1 and the Cartwright Act (Cal Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 16720) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Cod sec. 17200). State sought damages and “deadweight loss” (gneeral damage to state) and disgorgement. Settlement was $122,500. TRW agreed to cooperate fully with the state in investigating other participants in the conspiracy.
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.
