Attorney General v. Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, LLC (Fl. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty., Apr. 30, 2020)
Florida reached a multimillion-dollar agreement with one of the largest oncology medical practices in Florida to resolve state antitrust and consumer protection concerns. The proposed consent decree with Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, LLC follows a civil antitrust investigation into whether the health care provider entered into illegal agreements with competitors that allocated geographic…
The State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. CGC-11-515784, Calif. Superior Court, San Fran. Cty. Nov. 8, 2011
California sued makers of CRTs alleging they were part of a price-fixing scheme that resulted in overcharges in the price of products that contained CRTs, such as televisions and computer monitors. The alleged price fixing scheme occurred between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007. According to the complaint, the conspiracy involved top-level meetings of key executive decision-makers in Asia and Europe to set prices and outputs of CRTs. It also involved worldwide meetings among lower-level executives to exchange confidential information. The settlements, which were filed in San Francisco Superior Court, require all five companies to pay a total of $4.95 million to settle claims of overcharges paid by California government entities, general damages suffered by the State’s economy, and civil penalties. The settlements require that the companies pay back the illegally obtained profits to those affected by their actions. In addition, the settlements include injunctive relief, which requires that each company engage in company-wide antitrust compliance training and reporting that involves products in addition to CRTs and extends to foreign companies and subsidiaries. Finally, the settlements include requirements, enforceable by the court via fines and imprisonment, to prevent future violations of antitrust law. There was a parallel class action by indirect purchasers nationwide that was brought in federal court by private parties. The state worked with the private plaintiffs and a settlement agreement was reached, under which California consumers recovered damages.
Oregon ex rel. Rosenbloom v. LG Electronics, No. 120810246, (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty)
Oregon filed suit against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers, alleging that they illegally agreed upon the pricing of CRTs. The Attorney General filed this action on behalf of the State of Oregon and Oregon natural persons, and sought restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement and injunctive relief.
State of Wisconsin et al. v. Indivior, No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22,2016)
Plaintiff states alleged that the makers of Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, engaged in a scheme to block generic competitors and raise prices. Specifically, they are conspiring to wtich Suboxone from a tablet version to a flim in order to prevent or delay generic entry. The states allege that the manufacturers engaged in “product hopping” in which a company makes slight changes to its product to extend patent protections and prvent generic alternatives. The complaint was filed under seal.
Connecticut et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals et al. Civ. Action No. (D.Conn. Dec. 15, 2016)
Twenty states filed a federal lawsuit against six generic drug manufacturers, alleging that they entered into long-running and well coordinated illegal conspiracies in order to unreasonably restrain trade, artificially inflate and manipulate prices and reduce competition in the United States for two drugs: doxycycline hyclate delayed release, an antibiotic, and glyburide, an oral diabetes medication. The lawsuit was filed under seal to avoid compromising a continuing investigation. In the complaint, the states allege that the misconduct was conceived and carried out by senior drug company executives and their marketing and sales executives. The complaint further alleges that the defendants routinely coordinated their schemes through direct interaction with their competitors at industry trade shows, customer conferences and other events, as well as through direct email, phone and text message communications. The states further allege that the drug companies knew that their conduct was illegal and made efforts to avoid communicating with each other in writing or, in some instances, to delete written communications after becoming aware of the investigation. The states allege the anticompetitive conduct, including price-fixing and price maintenance, market allocation and other anticompetitive acts, caused significant, harmful and continuing effects in the country’s healthcare system. The states sought an injunction to prevent the companies from engaging in illegal, anticompetitive behavior and also sought equitable relief, including disgorgement. An additional 20 states joined the complaint in March 2017.
Ohio v. Cargill, Tuscarawas Cty Ct. of Common Pleas (Mar. 21, 2012)
State alleged that two rock salt producers had agreed to divide up the Ohio market for rock salt, assigning different contracts to the two different producers. State alleged that the defendants actively submitted sham losing bids, which also excluded other bidders because Ohio’s “Buy Ohio” provisions give a preference to Ohio companies if at least two Ohio producers submit bids.The parties settled in June 2015 with a payments totaling $11.5 million.
Mississippi v. Entergy, No. C-2008-2086 (Chan. Ct. Hinds Cty. Miss. 2008)
State filed suit against Entergy, an electricity provider regulated by the state PSC, alleging that Entergy violated its duty to Mississippi customers under the PSC’s rules by charging higher prices for electricity in Mississippi than in other states, with no justification in costs. The case alleged violations of the state’s consumer protection act, fraud and unjust enrichment, as well as one antitrust claim, alleging restraint of trade on the production of electricity and that Entergy engrossed and forestalled electricity markets in the state.
In the Matter of USI Consulting Group
State alleged kickback scheme by pension plan broker, who was paid by insurers for access to potential business. Broker agreed to injunctive relief changing its practices and $470,000.
Minnesota v. Ovation Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 08 cv 6381, D.Minn.
Minnesota and the FTC filed companion cases in federal court, alleging that Ovation monopolized the market for drugs to treat PDA, a heart ailment in newborns. The complaint alleged that Ovation acquired the rights to the only two drugs used to treat PDA. Patents were expiring on the first drug, Indocin, when Ovation purchased the second drug approved for treatment of PDA. Upon making this purchase, Ovation raised the price of both drugs from $36 per vial to $500 per vial. The purchase of the rights to Indocin was below the HSR reporting threshhold.
New York v. UBS Financial Services
Suit charged UBS with violations of state anti-fraud laws, as well as common law fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty by falsely promoting InsightOne as providing personalized advice and other financial planning services and pushing unsuited customers into InsightOne.
