Hawaii v. American International Group (AIG) Inc., No. 08-1-0191-01 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1st. Dist. Jan. 29, 2008)
State court proceedings to implement settlement reached with AIG, resolving alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers. See also NY v. AIG, Ohio v. AIG, Hawaii v. ACE Holdings.
Board of Regents v. Atlantic Coast Conference, No. (Cir. Ct. Pr. George’s Cty. Maryland, Jan. 18, 2013)
After the University of Maryland decided to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) for the Big Ten Conference for its collegiate athletics, the ACC sued the university in North Carolina. The state then sued in Maryland courts, seeking a declaratory judgment that the fee imposed by the ACC on the university was excessive and was a violation of state antitrust laws because the fee was an illegal restraint of trade. The case has been stayed and the stay has been appealed.
FTC and State of Ohio v. Promedica health System, No. 3:11CV0047 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2011)
State and FTC sought preliminary injunction in connection with an already consummated acquisition by Promedica of St. Luke’s hospital. The complaint alleged that ProMedica’s acquisition of St. Luke’s eliminated significant price and non-price competition between the two firms in both the general acute-care and inpatient obstetrical markets in Lucas County. According to the complaint, the acquisition also vests ProMedica with the ability to demand higher rates for services performed at its other hospitals as well, because the addition of St. Luke’s to the ProMedica hospital system has made ProMedica a “must-have” system for health plans seeking to do business in Lucas County, as plans can no longer offer consumers a viable provider network without including ProMedica’s hospitals. The preliminary injunction was granted, and the FTC proceeded with an administrative proceeding.
Massachusetts v. McMullen et al., No. 12-512B (Comm. Ct. of Mass. Apr. 27, 2012)
State settled bid-rigging allegations with former county commissioner and pest-control company owner. According to the complaint, Plymouth County put its pest control contract for seven county buildings out for quotes and received three quotes of which Capeway Pest was not the lowest. The complaint alleges that in the days before the vote on the contract by the Board of Commissioners, Burgess spoke on multiple occasions with then Commissioner McMullen. During at least one of their phone conversations McMullen allegedly provided non-public inside information by informing Burgess that Capeway Pest did not submit the lowest quote. Using this inside information, Capeway Pest submitted a new quote that exactly matched the previous low quote. The attempt to subvert the procurement process was uncovered prior to the vote on the pest control contract, and the original low quote was accepted. McMullen and Burgess agreed to pay $5000 each in civil penalties and $2500 each in costs.
South Carolina v. AU Optronics et al.,
Plaintiff state filed complaint in state court, alleging that the defendant manufacturers of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy from 1996 through 2006. The State sought civil forfeitures for violations of the state Antitrust Act; statutory penalties for violations of SCUTPA and restitution on behalf of South Carolina citizens for violations of SCUTPA, Defendants removed the case pursuant to CAFA, alleging it was a class action and mass action under CAFA because the real parties in interest are the state citizens who will receive restitution. The district court remanded the case to state court, on the grounds that the state had a quasi sovereign interest in the case and was the real party in interest. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision, in part because the relief available to the state was available to it alone. The case is stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics.
South Carolina v. LG Display Col, Ltd. et al.
Plaintiff state filed complaint in state court, alleging that the defendant manufacturers of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy from 1996 through 2006. The State sought civil forfeitures for violations of the state Antitrust Act; statutory penalties for violations of SCUTPA and restitution on behalf of South Carolina citizens for violations of SCUTPA, Defendants removed the case pursuant to CAFA, alleging it was a class action and mass action under CAFA because the real parties in interest are the state citizens who will receive restitution. The district court remanded the case to state court, on the grounds that the state had a quasi sovereign interest in the case and was the real party in interest. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision, in part because the relief available to the state was available to it alone. The case is stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Geisinger Health System Foundation et al., No. 4:CV-12-1081 (M.D. Pa.
State alleged that the the acquisition of Bloomsburg Hospital by Geisinger Heath System Foundation may substantially lessen or eliminate competition in the region. Geisinger is a non-profit parent of four hospitals, including its flagship Geisinger Medical Center which is located only 10 miles from Bloomsburg Hospital. It also owns the Geisinger Clinic, a multi-specialty physician group practice with more than 900 primary care and specialty physicians and the Geisinger Heath Plan. Geisinger is one of the largest providers of inpatient acute-care hospital services in northeastern Pennsylvania. The state was concerned that Geisinger would be able to raise prices for hospital and physician services to Columbia County residents and their health plans. The parties reached a settlement under which Geisinger agreed to continue to operate Bloomsburg Hospital as an acute care hospital for eight years, six years longer than the term agreed to by the parties. The agreement also requires that all physicans with privileges at Bloomsburg Hospital will keep their privileges. The original merger agreement with the Bloomsburg Board only protected certain physicians. Geisinger also agreed to negotiate and contract with health plans for Bloomsburg Hospital separately from Geisinger Medical Center. Bloomsburg Hospital historically had lower rates than Geisinger Medical Center. By contracting separately, Bloomsburg’s rates will be comparable to other community hospitals, not a large tertiary hospital like Geisinger.
U.S. and Vermont v. Verizon Communications, No. 1:08-cv-993-EGS (D.D.C. June 10, 2008
Vermont and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against Verizon and Rural Cellular Corp., challenging the merger of the two companies’ cellular services. The state and DOJ settled, requiring that the merged company sell all overlapping assets in Vermont.
U.S. and Kentucky v. Dairy Farmers of America, No. 6:03-206-KSF (E.D.Ky. 2007)
DOJ and Kentucky alleged that the acquisition by Dairy Farmers of American (DFA) of Southern Belle Dairy would substantially lessen competition for the sale of milk sold to schools in one hundred school districts in eastern Kentucky and Tennessee. The District Court granted summary judgment to DFA and Southern Belle. The government appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment as to DFA and remanded the case for trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Southern Belle, leaving DFA as the only defendant. The parties then reached a settlement requiring DFA to divest its interest in Southern Belle and use its best efforts to require its partner, the Allen Family Limited Partnership (“AFLP”), to also divest its interest in Southern Belle. to Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.
State v. Tradition (North America)
Defendant Tradition was a broker of guaranteed investment contracts (GICs), which are used to temporarily invest the proceeds of municipal bond issues. Tradition conducted the bidding process among banks that sought to sell GICs to the Commonwealth, and certified to the State that the bidding process was competitive and that the winning bid would be the GIC that provided the highest yield. The state alleged that Tradition created a rigged and corrupt bidding process by telling favored providers what other banks were bidding and also telling the favored providers exactly what to bid in order to win the business. This resulted in bids that offered Massachusetts less interest than it would have gotten if the bidding process had really been competitive. By fixing the bids, Tradition ensured that these favored providers would get business from the Commonwealth while also shortchanging Massachusetts. The state also alleged that Tradition told favored providers who had already indicated that they intended to offer certain high interest rates that these providers should offer less money to the Commonwealth. The complaint also alleged that Tradition repeatedly deceived the Commonwealth, provided false certifications regarding the bidding process. The parties reached a settlement under Tradition will pay $250,000 to Massachusetts. The settlement also includes a provision to track an ongoing investment obtained through the tainted bidding process to determine whether Tradition owes additional money to the state.
