New York v. AU Optronics
Plaintiff state filed an antitrust action against several major technology companies for
illegally fixing prices for liquid crystal display (“LCD”) screens used in computers, televisions, and cell phones. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered from 1996 to 2006 by New
York State and other public purchasers – local governments, schools, hospitals,
and colleges, among others – that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties. Consolidated with other litigation in an MDL in the Northern District of California. See Missouri v. AU Optronics
Florida v. AU Optronics
Plaintiff state filed suit against the world’s largest manufacturers of thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display panels, or “TFT-LCD panels,” alleging the companies conspired
to fix the prices of their products. The civil lawsuit, filed in federal district court in California, alleges that the defendants conspired to prevent competition and to increase prices for TFT-LCD panels, the most common form of LCD panels used in popular electronic devices such as desktop monitors, laptop screens, and flat panel televisions.
The state alleges that the defendants organized the conspiracy at the highest level of their organizations in various secret meetings and telephone conversations over a period of years. The United States Department of Justice has indicted a number of the defendants and their employees in the same federal court, resulting in more than $890 million in criminal fines. The lawsuit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. claims the companies violated the Florida Antitrust Act, the Sherman Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, civil penalties and costs.
People v. Tempur-Pedic, No. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Cty. Mar. 29, 2010)
State filed suit against Tempur-Pedic, a mattress manufacturer, alleging resale price maintenance. The state did not sue under its antitrust statute, but rather under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 369(a). The State alleged that Tempur-Pedic’s Retail Partner Agreement restrained discounting in a variety of ways. the trial court held that the state’s General Business law did not make resale price maintenance illegal, but only made contractual provisions embodying resale price maintenance uneforceable.
U.S. and Idaho v. Idaho Orthopaedic Society, No. 10-268 (D. Idaho, May 28, 2010)
Plaintiffs alleged that orthopedic doctors gained more favorable fees and contractual terms by agreeing to coordinate their actions, including denying medical care to injured workers covered by the State Insurance Fund and patients covered by Blue Cross. The settlement prevents the orthopedists from agreeing with their competitors on fees and contract terms. The settlement also prohibits the settling orthopedists from collectively denying medical care to patients, refusing to deal with any payor, or threatening to terminate any contract with a payor.
U.S., Illinois, Colorado and Indiana v. AMC Entertaininment Holdings, No. 10-cv00846 (D.D.C. 2010)
AMC, a movie theater chain operates 304 U.S. theaters housing 4,574 screens, most
of which are located in megaplexes operates Kerasotes ShowPlace Theatres operates 96 movie theaters with 973 screens in the United States, mostly in the Midwest. USDOJ and the plaintiff states challenged the acquisition of Kerasotes by AMC on the grounds that it would reduce competition in markets in Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. To resolve the case, AMC agreed to divest eight theaters–four in Illinois, two in Colorado and two in Indiana.
Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Kumar, No. 0903806CV, (Or. Cir. Ct., Klamath Cty. Feb. 5, 2010)
Defendants owned a retail market that sells fuel. State alleged that the defendants used threats and intimidation to seek to fix the price of gas at Ray’s Market and Klamath River Gas, a nearby station. State also alleged violations of its consumer protection act because the advertised price of gas was less than what was charged at the pump. Defendants were enjoined from future violations and paid $5,000, which the state agreed to accept in lieu of the $25,000 award.
Oregon ex rel. Myers v. Monem, No. 07c17510 (Ore. Cir. Cty, Marion Cty. 2007)
Defendant Monem was employed by state Dept. of Corrections as purchaser of food. Monem accepted bribes from several food wholesalers to purchase food for the prison system. USDOJ sought civil forfeiture of some of defendants’ assets. State brought state RICO, bribery and antitrust claims. Judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $4,556,103 and property held by corporations they had set up was sold in partial judgment on that claim.
In the Matter of LQ Management, LLC and La Quinta Franchising LLC
State investigated “call-arounds” by hotels, in which when one hotel employee contacts competing hotels and exchanges with them information concerning their respective current room rates and occupancy rates. Such call-arounds or information exchanges generally happen multiple times daily by phone or internet. this information is not otherwise public. The state alleged that competitors of La Quinta have used call-around information to raise their prices on a regular basis, violating the Connecticut Antitrust Act. Defendants agreed to end the practice in their hotel chain, which operates five hotels in Connecticut. La Quinta’s agreement to end call-arounds covers all La Quinta hotels nationally. The prohibition does not prevent hotels from reviewing commercially available reports and information, communicating with any other hotel or motel on behalf of a specific guest seeking to relocate, or communicating with any other hotel/motel to accommodate guests in the event of a state of emergency, disaster or similar situation.
Attorney General of Florida v. ASAP Meds No. 04-16032 (09) (Fl. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty. Oct. 27 2004)
State brought price-gouging action against distributor of flu vaccine during a flu vaccine shortage. The distributor’s prices were allegedly 1000 percent of the actual price of the vaccine. Defendant agreed to consent order enjoining it from sales of the vaccine and turned its supply of vaccine over to the Florida Department of Health. Several months later, the state and the defendant entered into a settlement under which the defendant agreed to refrain from intentionally making false statements to consumers relating to how much of a given drug is in stock, how quickly it is being sold and how long the current supply will last. In addition, the company paid $150,000 for a training and educational program for at-risk youth and $71,000 to be used to assist pharmacies that were affected by Meds-Stat’s activities.
People of the state of California v. Dermaquest, No. RG10497526 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Alameda Cty. Feb. 23, 2010)
State sued DermaQuest, a maker of “cosmeceuticals” alleging vertical price maintenance in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 16720. State sought injunction, civil penalties and attorneys fees.
