New York v. Willis Group Holdings Ltd., Willis North America Inc., Willis of New York, Inc., Assurance of Discontinuance
State of New York sought damages and conduct relief, alleging that Defendant Willis engaged in fraudulent and anti-competitive practices.
New York v. Aon Corporation
States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants unlawfully deceived clients by steering clients’ insurance business, promising increased retail business to insurers in return for their commitments to use Aon’s reinsurance services, suggesting that an insurer raise its quotes for two of Aon’s clients, entering into undisclosed “producer funding agreements” whereby insurers directly funded the hiring of Aon brokers, entering into secret “pay-to-play” arrangements with insurers whereby Aon obtained undisclosed compensation, agreeing with preferred insurers to “freeze out” a competing insurer, and providing preferred insurers with first looks, last looks, and exclusive looks on preferred business.
New York v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Marsh Inc. and their subsidiaries and affiliates
State of New York sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant Marsh unlawfully deceived its clients by steering clients’ insurance business and soliciting fictitious bids.
Washington v. Washington State Tire Dealers Ass’n, No. 99-2-22692-5SEA, (King Cty Super. Ct. 1999)
Defendant tire dealers association facilitated agreement among members to refuse to sell less than four studded snow tires at a time. Defendants also promoted sales by publishing or displaying information concerning the relative safety of tire installation without reasonable substantiation for their claims at the time they were made.
Starwood v. State of Washington, CV02-1469C (W.D. Wash. 2003)
State investigated the practices of Starwood, related to its operation of hotels competing in the downtown Seattle convention and large group markets. The state’s concern focused on Starwood’s management of the only two large convention hotels in Seattle, which were independently owned, and whether groups were receiving competitive bids from each hotel.
Washington v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al, No. 05-2-05779-3 (King Cty. Super. Ct. 2005)
Sorbates antitrust litigaiton.
Washington v. Robert Lewis, et. al, No. C04-5341 (W.D. Wash. 2004)
Defendants are criminal defense attorneys in Clark County, Washington. Defendants organized a boycott by the criminal defense attorneys, in an effort to increase reimbursement rates. A written agreement appointed defendants as the exclusive bargaining representatives for rate negotiations. Prices for indigent criminal defense services increased. There was no integration of defendants’ practices.
Washington v. Tosco Corp., No. C97-1773 WD (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 1997)
Merger review revealed concern about access to Tosco’s gasoline terminal space and some retail consolidation.
Texas v. White Swan, Inc.
State of Texas filed suit for damages, civil fines and injunction, alleging defendant and others rigged bids to certain governmental entities for the sale and distribution of wholesale grocery products in Harris County, Texas.
Washington v. Surgical Specialists of Yakima, PLLC et al.,
Defendants allegedly formed Sugical Specialists of Yakima as a vehicle primarily for jointly negotiating fees for most of the general surgery services in Yakima, WA. They refused to negotiate individually. The physicians did not use SSY to otherwise integrate their offices or operations. Prices for surgical services increased as planned.
