Maryland et al. v. Perrigo Company, No. 1:04CV01398 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2004)

The FTC and states alleged that the companies had entered into a “pay-for-delay” arrangement, whereby Perrigo paid Alpharma to withdraw its generic version from the market for Children’t ibuprofen.According to the complaint, in June 1998, Perrigo and Alpharma signed an agreement allocating to Perrigo the sale of OTC children’s liquid ibuprofen for seven years. In exchange for agreeing not to compete, Alpharma received an up-front payment and a royalty on Perrigo’s sales of children’s liquid ibuprofen. The FTC received $6.25 million to compensate injured consumers. The states received $1.5 million in lieu of civil penalties. the parties were enjoined from future agreements.

Read More →

Connecticut v. H.I. Stone & Son, Inc., Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. Oct. 22.2014

Plaintiff state alleged that the town of Southbury in October 2011 decided to put its snow removal contract out to bid, rather than offering it to the defendants without competition. According to the complaint, the defendants colluded and jointly refused to deal with the town and plow for the fast approaching nor’easter unless they were given a guaranteed minimum contract for a larger portion of that winter season. In the face of this threat, and with the impending storm posing a potential threat to public safety, the town agreed. The town later put out a bid for the remainder of its snow removal work for the 2011-to-2012 winter season. According to the complaint, the defendants again colluded and entered into a conspiracy with one another designed to eliminate competition among them and substantially raise the prices they received for snowplowing services from the town. Under the settlement agreement, the three corporate defendants will pay the state $30,000 each in civil penalties. The three companies will also provide the town of Southbury with snow removal services at the original rate prior to the conspiracy for a period of three years that will be applied retroactively beginning with the 2013-2014 winter season. In addition to paying civil penalties and providing reduced-rate services to the town of Southbury, each company will establish an antitrust and competition training program that will be provided to the Office of Attorney General for its review on an annual basis.

Read More →

Hawaii v. American International Group (AIG) Inc., No. 08-1-0191-01 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1st. Dist. Jan. 29, 2008)

State court proceedings to implement settlement reached with AIG, resolving alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers. See also NY v. AIG, Ohio v. AIG, Hawaii v. ACE Holdings.

Read More →

State v. Tradition (North America)

Defendant Tradition was a broker of guaranteed investment contracts (GICs), which are used to temporarily invest the proceeds of municipal bond issues. Tradition conducted the bidding process among banks that sought to sell GICs to the Commonwealth, and certified to the State that the bidding process was competitive and that the winning bid would be the GIC that provided the highest yield. The state alleged that Tradition created a rigged and corrupt bidding process by telling favored providers what other banks were bidding and also telling the favored providers exactly what to bid in order to win the business. This resulted in bids that offered Massachusetts less interest than it would have gotten if the bidding process had really been competitive. By fixing the bids, Tradition ensured that these favored providers would get business from the Commonwealth while also shortchanging Massachusetts. The state also alleged that Tradition told favored providers who had already indicated that they intended to offer certain high interest rates that these providers should offer less money to the Commonwealth. The complaint also alleged that Tradition repeatedly deceived the Commonwealth, provided false certifications regarding the bidding process. The parties reached a settlement under Tradition will pay $250,000 to Massachusetts. The settlement also includes a provision to track an ongoing investment obtained through the tainted bidding process to determine whether Tradition owes additional money to the state.

Read More →

State of Florida et al. v. Hitachi-LG Data Storage Inc. et al., No.3:13-cv-01877

After Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. was charged with a 15-count felony charge by the United States Department of Justice, pleaded guilty to bid-rigging and price-fixing of Optical Disc Drives (ODDs) and paid a $21.1 million criminal fine, Florida filed suit. The suit alleged that Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and its subsidiary, Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., participated in meetings, discussions, and communications to share competitively sensitive information, in order to rig bids for ODDs sold to Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Microsoft Corporation. The state is seeking equitable relief, damages, and civil penalties for Florida consumers, businesses, and governmental entities.

Read More →

United States and New York v. Twin America LLC et al., No. 12CV8989 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2012)

The state and USDOJ filed a joint complaint alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts as well as the Donnelly Act and New York Executive Law. The complaint alleged that the parties had entered into an illegal joint venture which created a monopoly in the “hop-on, hop-off” bus tours in New York City. The settlement reached by the parties requires the defendants to relinquish approximately fifty bus stops across Manhattan controlled by City Sightsand to disgorge $7.5 million in profits they obtained from the operation of their illegal joint venture, and as a result of their several year effort to forestall antitrust enforcement. The New York Attorney General and the United States determined that disgorgement was particularly appropriate on the facts of this case, a consummated merger involving an anticompetitive price increase and deliberate attempts to evade antitrust enforcement.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

Maine v. MaineHealth, No. BCD-CV-11-08 (Super. Ct. Cumberland Cty. Maine Jan. 13, 2012)

Health system sought to purchase two cardiology practice groups in the Portland Maine area and employ them at its Portland hospital. On two previous occasions, the practice groups had sought to merge and the Attorney General had disapproved the transaction. The parties agreed to a settlement with a number of injunctive provisions for a term of five years.

Read More →

Texas et al. v. Penguin Group et al., No. 1:12-cv-03394-DLC (S.D.N.Y, Apr. 30, 2012)

TTexas and Connecticut led 33 state group that filed complaint charging three of the nation’s largest book publishers and Apple Inc. with colluding to fix the sales prices of electronic books. The States undertook a two-year investigation into allegations that the defendants conspired to raise e-book prices. Retailers had long sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers, not publishers, set e-book sales prices. The states alleged that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at $12.99 and $14.99. When Apple prepared to enter the e-book market, the publishers and Apple agreed to adopt an agency distribution model as a mechanism to allow them to fix prices. To enforce their price-fixing scheme, the publishers and Apple relied on contract terms that forced all e-book outlets to sell their products at the same price. Because the publishers agreed to use the same prices, retail price competition was eliminated. According to the States’ enforcement action, the coordinated agreement to fix prices resulted in e-book customers paying more than $100 million in overcharges. The States’ antitrust action seeks injunctive relief, damages for customers who paid artificially inflated prices for e-books and civil penalties. Case was filed in W.D. Tex., transferred to S.D.N.Y. as consolidated case. The States reached settlements with the five publishers, which granted E-book outlets greater freedom to reduce the prices of their E-book titles. Consumers nationwide received a total of $164 million in compensation. After entering into settlement agreement with all the Defendant publishers, DOJ and the states had a nearly 3 week trial against Apple in June 2013, during which numerous witnesses took the stand. On July 10, 2013, a decision was handed down in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and the states against Apple. Trial of the damages phase is pending. United States et al. v. Apple, Inc., 12-CV-2826 (S.D.N.Y.).

Read More →

Pennsylvania v. Geisinger Medical Center, No. 344 MD 2011 (Pa. Comm. Ct. July 26, 2011)

State challenged merger on the grounds that it could lessen competition for primary or secondary acute care hospital services sold to Medicare plans and primary and non-tertiary physician services in Northumberland County, PA.

Read More →