Cox ex rel. Michigan v. Home City Ice, No. 10-1080-CP (30th Jud. Dist. Ingham Cty. 2010)
After companies pleaded guilty to federal criminal price-fixing, Michigan alleged that between 2001 and 2007 Arctic Glacier and Home City Ice conspired to reduce competition between the two ice manufacturers in the southeast Michigan market. The companies allocated geographic territories and customers between themselves, lessening competition and potentially resulting in higher prices
for consumers. The companies agreed to pay $740,000 ($350,000 from Arctic Glacier and $390,000 from Home City) in the form of penalties.
Cox ex rel. Michigan v. Arctic Glacier Int’l, No. 10-1050-CP (30th Jud. Cir. Ingham Cty. 2010)
After companies pleaded guilty to federal criminal price-fixing, Michigan alleged that between 2001 and 2007 Arctic Glacier and Home City Ice conspired to reduce competition between the two ice manufacturers in the southeast Michigan market. The companies allocated geographic territories and customers between themselves, lessening competition and potentially resulting in higher prices
for consumers. The companies agreed to pay $740,000 ($350,000 from Arctic Glacier and $390,000 from Home City) in the form of penalties.
Massachusetts v.William Gallagher & Associates
State filed a complaint and a Consent Judgment against Boston-based insurance broker William Gallagher Associates Insurance Brokers, Inc. (“WGA”) for billing customers for unauthorized and undisclosed compensation and misleading customers about the brokerage firm’s contingent commission practices and involvement in reinsurance. Contingent commissions, also known as profit sharing commissions, are controversial incentive-based compensation programs offered to brokers by insurance companies. WGA agreed to return $3,017,003 to eleven clients, pay at least $925,000 in sanctions and attorneys fees to the State, and submit to a binding audit of its Energy and Environmental practice group. The Judgment also requires WGA to send statements to over seven hundred customers to correct prior allegedly false representations the company made regarding its employees’ knowledge of contingent commissions and WGA’s participation in reinsurance. Reinsurance is a form of insurance that insurance companies purchase to protect themselves against their policyholders’ claims. Going forward, WGA has agreed to provide enhanced compensation disclosures to customers by providing written notice of all fees and commissions.
Connecticut v. Nutmeg Test Boring, No. CV-84-298394 (Conn. Super Ct. Hartford Dist.1984)
Trade association and its members were enjoined from fixing the prices for industrial drilling and test-boring services, and from communicating certain pricing information with each other.
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
In the Matter of ACE Ltd. and ACE Group Holdings, Inc.
ACE Ltd., an insurance broker, allegedly participated in bid-rigging schemes with Marsh McLennan and other borkers in which they provided sham bids tocustomers. ACE agreed to pay $80 milion in restitution and penalties, and to adopt a series of significant reforms of its business practices
In the Matter of Zurich Holding Co. of America, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co.
Zurich agreed to an Assurance of Discontinuance to resolve claims of bid-rigging and sham bidding. Under the AOD, Zurich paid $88 million to policy holders, $39 million to New York and $13 million each to Connecticut and Illinois.
North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. McClure et al., No. 03 CVS 005617 (Wake County Super. Ct. 2003)
State alleged a group of environmental consulting firms conspired to rig bids and inflate prices that the state pays to clean sites contaminated by leaking petroleum tanks.
New York v. Eggleston,
State alleged defendants submitted sham bids in online auctions run through E-Bay. Parties agreed to settlement under which defendants would pay $28,000 in penalties and restitution.
New York v. Baranovich, No. 04401698, Supreme Court of NY, NY County (2004)
E-Bay auction store owner and his son agreed to settle charges that they had submitted more than 100 shill bids in electronic auctions they ran on E-Bay
