Connecticut v. Danilow Pastry Co., Inc., No. CV 83-028-7470 (Conn. Super Ct., Hartford Dist. 1983)
Following USDOJ criminal investigation, wholesale bakeries were enjoined from fixing prices and exchanging prices of various baked goods. Conspiracy impacted Connecticut and New York market area.
Connecticut v. Auto-Time, No. CV-83-290265 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist.1983)
The exclusive New England distributor of Seiko branded watches was enjoined from engaging in resale price maintenance, following complaints of dealer terminations
Texas v. Memorial Hermann Healthcare Systems, Inc., No. 2009-04609, 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
State alleged that Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, the largest operator of hospitals in Houston, Texas, had driven a rival hospital out of business by coercing insurance plans to refuse to deal with the rival hospital. Parties reached a settlement under which Memorial Hermann would be bound for five years not to conspire or act in any way to further this type of boycott.
In re Marsh & McLennan
Plaintiff states alleged that Marsh, an insurance broker, made collusive arrangements whereby brokers entered into agreements with insurers to receive undisclosed compensation and engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for commercial liability insurance. March agreed to reveal all commissions paid, and to pay the states $7 million.
United States and Plaintiff States v. JBS S.A., No. 08CV5992 (N.D. Ill. 2009)
JBS, headquartered in Brazil, sought to acquire National Beef Packing, Inc., headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. The U.S. Department of Justice and 13 states sued to block the transaction, which, according to the complaint, would substantially restructure the beef packing industry, eliminating a competitively significant packer and placing more than 80 percent of domestic fed cattle packing capacity in the hands of three firms: JBS, Tyson Foods Inc., and Cargill Inc. The complaint alleged that the acquisition would lessen competition among packers in the production and sale of USDA-graded boxed beef nationwide and would lessen competition among packers for the purchase of fed cattle ? cattle ready for slaughter ? in the High Plains, centered in Colorado, western Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, and the Southwest. In February 2009, the parties announced that they were abandoning the transaction.
Florida et al. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 1:08-cv-00155-SLR (D.Del. 2007)
States alleged Abbott Laboratories; Fournier
Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier, S.A., blocked competition from less expensive
generics by continuously making minor changes in the formulations of TriCor to prevent therapeutically equivalent generic substitutions. The states alleged that the product switches helped thwart generic competition, allowing the companies to charge monopoly prices for TriCor.
The lawsuit also allegd the companies used patents, which they obtained by deceiving the Patent and Trademark Office and improperly enforced and brought a series of patent infringement lawsuits against two generic companies. According to the complaint, Abbott and Fournier filed at least ten lawsuits against two generic companies who were attempting to obtain FDA approval for their generic versions of TriCor. Abbott and Fournier eventually lost or dismissed all of the lawsuits. As a result of the product switches and patent litigation, Abbott and Fournier have successfully thwarted generic competition and denied consumers and state agencies the choice of a lower priced therapeutically equivalent generic.
The states settled their claims for $22.5 milion, which covered governmental purchases, as well as injunctive relief to prevent “product hopping” by the defendants in the future.
Florida v. Travelers Companies, Inc. (Leon County Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courts. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company’s bid would “win” a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the impression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a “pay-to-play” arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients’ interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Oregon v. Travelers Companies (Multnomah County Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
Massachusetts v. Travelers Companies (Suffolk Superior Court)
Plaintiff states filed identical complaints and consent orders in their respective state courst. See case listings under other settling states. The complaint alleged that Travelers
participated in a bid rigging scheme in which broker Marsh & McLennan predesignated which insurance company?s bid would ?win? a particular account. To create the appearance of a competitive bidding process, Marsh would instruct certain insurers to submit inflated, intentionally uncompetitive bids. These schemes gave commercial policyholders, including large and small companies, nonprofit organizations, and public entities, the mpression that they were receiving the most competitive commercial premiums available, when they were actually being overcharged.
Additionally, Travelers was involved with a ?pay-to-play? arrangement centered on their
payment of contingent commissions, in addition to standard commissions and fees, to insurance brokers. Contingent commissions, often undisclosed to consumers, provided an incentive for brokers to steer business to the insurer who offered the most lucrative contingent commissions, often in violation of their clients? interests.
States settled for $6 million plus injunctive relief mandating disclosure of types and amounts of compensation.
People ex rel. Madigan v. Carle Clinic Association, P.C., No. 07h115 (Champaign Cty. 6th Jud. Dist. 2007)
State alleged two clinics conspired to boycott Medicaid patients by adopting identical policies through which they refused to accept Medicaid patients: (1) who were not already registered with the clinic or (2) who had not seen a clinic physician for at least three
years. They allegedly sought to increase the Medicaid reimbursement rates and to accelerate reimbursement payments from the State of Illinois. Settlement reached in which Carle will increase Medicaid patient load and pay local health centers who had to treat more patients because of the policies. In April 2009, Christie Clinic settled with the state, agreeing to increase the number of Medicaid patients it will accept for primary health care services to 8,500 over the next
three years; will not deny Medicaid patients primary care services because of existing medical debt incurred from March 2003 through September 2007 – the period during which these patients were turned away as qualified Medicaid patients and were charged for health care services; and wil pay, over three years, $120,000 to Frances Nelson Health Center to help fund its primary care services for low-income patients
and $34,000 to the Champaign Urbana Public Health District to help pay for its dental program for low-income children. Both Christie and Carle Clinics are committed to accept more than 17,000 Medicaid patients in the intial year, growing to 20,000 over the next three years.
