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.
Connecticut v. Connecticut Chiropractic Ass’n et al. (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford March 25, 2008)
State alleged that members of both trade groups, spurred on by their leadership,
illegally agreed to boycott Anthem Health Plans, Inc.’s intention to form a new network for chiropractic services that would be administered by American Specialty Health Networks, Inc. (ASH). Hirtle (longtime counsel to CCA) facilitated the conspiracy by aggressively urging chiropractors to opt out
of the proposed network. Chiropractors feared that the ASH contract would lower reimbursement rates for chiropractic services. The state alleged that the illegal boycott improperly influenced the rates paid to
chiropractors; raised chiropractic costs for Anthem; and deprived Anthem, ASH
and consumers of the benefits of competition among chiropractors. Under the settlements, the CCA, CCC and Hirtle have agreed to pay civil penalties to the state, as well as adopt several measures to prevent future anticompetitive practices.
Connecticut v. Reiner, Reiner & Bendett
Plaintiff state alleged that Reiner, a law firm, which also sells title insurance, used sham service, rental and other agreements to
conceal $142,200 in kickbacks and unlawful inducements between 2002 and 2005. In exchange, Absolute and Access allegedly steered title insurance business to the law firm. Connecticut law prohibits title insurance agents from paying for referrals.
Oregon v. ACE Holdings, Inc.
Consent decrees filed by states in state court required $4.5 million payment and conduct relief to remedy alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers.
District of Columbia v. ACE Holdings, Inc.
Consent decrees filed by states in state court required $4.5 million payment and conduct relief to remedy alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers.
Florida v. ACE Holdings, Inc.
Consent decrees filed by states in state court required $4.5 million payment and conduct relief to remedy alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers.
Texas v. ACE Holdings, Inc.
Consent decrees filed by states in state court required $4.5 million payment and conduct relief to remedy alleged bid-rigging and false insurance quotes, as well as payment of secret “contingent commissions” to brokers.
Connecticut v. Guy Carpenter & Co., No. HHD-CV-07-40433778 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. 2007)
Plaintiff state alleged a series of conspiracies within the reinsurance industry, principally led by broker Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC, to fix prices and terms on reinsurance contracts purchased in Connecticut and throughout the United States and to mislead primary insurance company clients regarding Guy Carpenter?s role as an agent and underwriter for numerous reinsurance companies. Complaint alleges that Guy Carpenter conspired with numerous reinsurers to fix prices and output, foreclose competitors from access, allocate markets and eliminate competition in the reinsurance market.
Arizona v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcrae Association
Arizona and USDOJ alleged that hospital trade association fixed the price of nursing services from temporary nursing agencies as participaitng hospitals, which comprised 80 percent of hospital beds in Phoenix and Tucson. Inunctive relief prohibiting conduct and implementing compliance program.
Connecticut v. Acordia (Super. Ct. Hartford Jud. Dist.)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
