U.S. and Idaho v. Idaho Orthopaedic Society, No. 10-268 (D. Idaho, May 28, 2010)
Plaintiffs alleged that orthopedic doctors gained more favorable fees and contractual terms by agreeing to coordinate their actions, including denying medical care to injured workers covered by the State Insurance Fund and patients covered by Blue Cross. The settlement prevents the orthopedists from agreeing with their competitors on fees and contract terms. The settlement also prohibits the settling orthopedists from collectively denying medical care to patients, refusing to deal with any payor, or threatening to terminate any contract with a payor.
Oregon ex rel. Myers v. Monem, No. 07c17510 (Ore. Cir. Cty, Marion Cty. 2007)
Defendant Monem was employed by state Dept. of Corrections as purchaser of food. Monem accepted bribes from several food wholesalers to purchase food for the prison system. USDOJ sought civil forfeiture of some of defendants’ assets. State brought state RICO, bribery and antitrust claims. Judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $4,556,103 and property held by corporations they had set up was sold in partial judgment on that claim.
Attorney General of Florida v. ASAP Meds No. 04-16032 (09) (Fl. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty. Oct. 27 2004)
State brought price-gouging action against distributor of flu vaccine during a flu vaccine shortage. The distributor’s prices were allegedly 1000 percent of the actual price of the vaccine. Defendant agreed to consent order enjoining it from sales of the vaccine and turned its supply of vaccine over to the Florida Department of Health. Several months later, the state and the defendant entered into a settlement under which the defendant agreed to refrain from intentionally making false statements to consumers relating to how much of a given drug is in stock, how quickly it is being sold and how long the current supply will last. In addition, the company paid $150,000 for a training and educational program for at-risk youth and $71,000 to be used to assist pharmacies that were affected by Meds-Stat’s activities.
In the Matter of LQ Management, LLC and La Quinta Franchising LLC
State investigated “call-arounds” by hotels, in which when one hotel employee contacts competing hotels and exchanges with them information concerning their respective current room rates and occupancy rates. Such call-arounds or information exchanges generally happen multiple times daily by phone or internet. this information is not otherwise public. The state alleged that competitors of La Quinta have used call-around information to raise their prices on a regular basis, violating the Connecticut Antitrust Act. Defendants agreed to end the practice in their hotel chain, which operates five hotels in Connecticut. La Quinta’s agreement to end call-arounds covers all La Quinta hotels nationally. The prohibition does not prevent hotels from reviewing commercially available reports and information, communicating with any other hotel or motel on behalf of a specific guest seeking to relocate, or communicating with any other hotel/motel to accommodate guests in the event of a state of emergency, disaster or similar situation.
Kansas v. Meds-Stat (
Plaintiff state sued Flrida vaccine firm , Meds-Stat,alleging the company planned to sell flu vaccine at prices almost 1,000 percent higher than the original list prices in the wake of the U.S. flu vaccine shortage.
The settlement required Meds-Stat to affirm the company sold no vaccine in the state at exorbitant prices, reimburse the state for costs of the investigation as well as legal fees and expenses, and assist the state in identifying problems in the vaccine distribution network to prevent future price gouging.
New York v. Long Island Taxi and Transportation Owners Ass’n, No. 88-1089 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)
State sued business and individual defendants, alleging fixing of prices on spaces for taxicabs at rail stations on Long Island; fixing rates on taxi services; rigging bids on contracts for taxi services and allocating territories among themselves. Settlement included injunctive relief and $10,000 civil penalty for each business defendant.
New York et al. v. Herman Miller, Inc. (
Three states alleged Herman Miller (HMH) sought to raise and maintain retail prices on its “AERON” chairs. According to the complaint, HMH responded to complaints and urging by HMH’s retailers, beginning in 2001, by establishing and announcing minimum prices, below which retailers were prohibited from advertising any HMH furniture. Under HMH’s Suggested Retail Price policy, HMH retailers had to agree with HMH not to advertise below HMH’s dictated prices for Aeron chairs in any medium where prices can be seen by consumers. HMH was enjoined from using the SRP program for two years,and from telling dealers how much to sell their chairs for. HMH paid $750,00 to the plaintiff states.
In the Matter of Independent Connecticut Petroleum Ass’n Inc.
State alleged that heating oil dealers, throught their trade association, conspired to boycott the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program, which helps pay for heating oil for low-income consumers. The boycott was intended to raise the reimbursement rate for heating oil provided by participating dealers. According to the state, the trade association urged the dealersnot to participate in the program. The settlement prohibited future agreements seeking to increase the reimbursement rates, required the association to establish an anittrust compliance program and notify the AG of its compliance with the settlement for 10 years.
Pennsylvania v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (W.D. Pa)
State entered into a consent decree with University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to remedy anticompetitive concerns with acquisition of Mercy Medical Systems in Western Pennsylvania.
Connecticut v. Journeymen Barbers Hairdressers and Cosmetologists International
Action claiming illegality of defendants’ pricing practices via use of a minimum fee schedule.
