California v. Education Media and Publishing Group Ltd, No. 09-2134-JCS (N.D. Cal. 2009, May 15, 2009)
As part of the review of the acquisition by textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin of textbook publisher Harcourt Education, the state filed a consent decree under which price increases on California-adopted textbooks and workbooks would be capped at 4.25 percent per annum for six years. The merging parties agreed to pay the state $300,00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
FTC and California ex rel. Brown v. Watson Pharmaceuticals No. CV-09-00598 (C.D. Cal Feb. 12, 2009)
Plaintiff State and the FTC challenged so-called “reverse payment” agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals (patent holder) and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceuticals and Paddock Laboratories that delayed the entry of a generic substitute for Androgel, a testosterone-replacement drug. State and the FTC alleged that Solvay, fearing the entry of lower-cost generic substitutes for Androgel, resolved patent litigation with the other three companies by making substantial payments to them, on the condition that they not enter the market with their generic version. the parties seek injunctive relief and fines of $2500 per violation under California antitrust law. Case was transferred to district court in Georgia and state did not re-file in Georgia, although the FTC did.
Florida v. Champion Laboratories, No. 1:09-cv-02321 (N.D. Ill. 2009)
State filed against nine manufacturers of aftermarket auto filters, alleging a scheme to illegally fix prices, allocate customers and eliminate price competition since at least 1999. The suit alleges that high-level filter company executives conspired to maintain artificially high prices for
their companies� filters by agreeing among themselves to fix, increase, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of filters sold in the United States, in violation of state and federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The executives allegedly communicated about prices and even met with each other on numerous occasions, including at filter industry trade association meetings, to fix the prices and allocate customers and markets. The lawsuit further alleges the defendant companies used misleading information in letters seeking to justify their price increases. The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys� fees and costs as well as civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation against each defendant. Private litigation is pending, USDOJ investigated but did not pursue case.
Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Gannett Co., Inc. (D. Ariz. 2009)
Two newspapers in Pima County sought to stop publishing one of the papers and share the profits on the other paper, pursuant to a change in their ongoing Joint Operating Agreement. Judge denied state’s request for TRO, on grounds that newspaper was a “failing firm.” State dismissed complaint.
Minnesota v. Children’s Health of St. Paul, No. 4-94-CV-513 (D. Minn. 1994),
The children’s hospitals in Minneapolis and St. Paul sought to merge. The state filed a complaint and eventuallyreached a settlement, the term of which was five years, under which the entity would not be able to merge with any health care provider or specialty physician practice without the approval of the Attorney General. The merged entity would not be able to manage pediatric practices at other area hospitals. The merged entity was also prohibited from ent4ering into exclusive agreements with any group purchaser. The merged entity also could not, for two years, enter into any exclusive contract with physician specialty groups that would prevent them from providing services at other hospitals.
Connecticut v. Nutmeg Test Boring, No. CV-84-298394 (Conn. Super Ct. Hartford Dist.1984)
Trade association and its members were enjoined from fixing the prices for industrial drilling and test-boring services, and from communicating certain pricing information with each other.
Connecticut v. Amity Package, CV-84-228912 (Conn. Super Ct., New Haven Dist. 1984)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Colorado v. Ladley
Plaintiff state alleged that five auto body shops in Boulder Colorado conspired to fix the price of auto body repairs. Four defendants paid $59,500 in civil penalties, attorneys fees and costs. One defendant (Hutsell) paid nothing.
Connecticut v. Serlin Group
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Super Saver Liquor Outlets, No. CV-84-228911 (Conn. Super Ct., New Haven Dist.)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
