People v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., No. 23STCV00719 (Super. Ct. L.A. Cty. Jan. 12, 2023)

February 9, 2024

California sued the largest insulin makers and PBMs, alleging that they drove up the cost of the drug through unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of Cal. Bus & Prof. Code 17200, et. seq. The three manufacturers named in the lawsuit produce over 90% of the global insulin supply and the three PBMs…

Read More →

People of California v. Vitol, Inc. et al., (Cal. Super. Ct. (San Francisco Cty.)

April 28, 2023

Plaintiff state sued two gasoline trading firms, Vitol Inc. and SK Energy Americas, alleging that they took advantage of market disruptions from a 2015 refinery explosion in Torrance to improperly drive up the gasoline prices. The state sought an injunction, damages, restitution, and civil penalties. The complaint alleged that the two companies made manipulative trades…

Read More →

Washington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-2-14174-5 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. 2022)

April 28, 2023

Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit against 19 chicken producers accusing them of a wide-ranging illegal conspiracy to inflate and manipulate prices, rig contract bids and coordinate industry supply reductions to maximize profits. The defendants account for approximately 95 percent of the broiler chickens sold in the United States. The complaint asserts their conduct violates the…

Read More →

Washington v. Starkist Company, No. 20-2-09491-9 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. June 2, 2020)

January 25, 2021

Plaintiff state filed a civil lawsuit against Starkist, one of the world’s largest canned tuna manufacturers and the former CEO of Bumble Bee Foods, another large tuna manufacturer, over a price-fixing conspiracy that drove up the cost of packaged tuna for more than a decade. The suit alleged that StarKist Co., its parent company Dongwon,…

Read More →

FTC et al. v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, No. 1:20-cv-00706 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2020)

January 4, 2021

The FTC, New York and six other states filed suit against Vyera Pharmaceuticals, its parent company, Phoenixus and its former officers, Kevin Mulleady and Martin Shkreli, alleging anticompetivie conduct in connection with Daraprim, the only FDA approved drug for the treatment of the life-threatening parasitic disease toxoplasmosis.  The suit alleges that Vyera purchases the unpatented…

Read More →

Oregon ex rel. Rosenbloom v. LG Electronics, No. 120810246, (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty)

October 9, 2020

Oregon filed suit against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers, alleging that they illegally agreed upon the pricing of CRTs. The Attorney General filed this action on behalf of the State of Oregon and Oregon natural persons, and sought restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement and injunctive relief.

Read More →

Florida v. General Chemical Corp. No. 2:17-00384 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2017)

October 9, 2020

Plaintiff state filed action in federal court alleging market allocation and price-fixing among manufacturers of the chemical liquid aluminum sulfate, which is a coagulant used to remove impurities and other substances from water. It is used primarily by municipalities in wastewater treatment. There are high barriers to entry and substitution is difficult. There have been several USDOJ indictments in the industry. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing and to raise liquid aluminum sulfate prices by submitting artificially inflated bids in Florida from 1997 through at least February 2012. The state alleged that fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy tolled the statute of limitations.

Read More →

People v. Pratibha Syntex Ltd., No. BC499751 (Cal. Super. Ct., LA Cty. Dec. 10, 2015)

October 9, 2020

Plaintiff state filed suits against international apparel manufacturer for gaining an unfair competitive advantage over American companies by using pirated software in the production of clothing imported and sold in California. The complaint alleged that the foreign apparel manufacturer, based in India, who did not paid software licensing fees has a significant cost advantage in the low-margin business of apparel manufacturing, shipment and sales. The company did not pay licensing fees for software products manufactured by Adobe, Microsoft, Symantec and others. Since 2010, Pratibha shipped approximately 19,000 pounds of apparel products into California. The complaint alleges that the company obtained an unfair advantage because it can redirect money saved by using pirated software to hire employees and to expand their facilities and their research and development efforts. Furthermore, American companies that are developing software, particularly software that is used in the garment industry, are discouraged from investing in new technology and products if they know their software will be used illegally. In December 2015, a settlement was reached, the first time a state has secured a legally enforceable judgment against an international company for these types of violations. The settlement requires Pratibha Syntex to pay $100,000 in restitution within 30 days. The settlement prohibits Pratibha Syntex from using unlicensed software or reproducing any part of a copyrighted software program without the permission of the legitimate copyright holder, and further requires the company to perform four complete audits of the software on their computers and fix any violations within 45 days. In addition, Pratibha Syntex must draft an information technology policy statement regarding the use of licensed software and distribute this policy to all employees

Read More →

South Carolina v. LG Display Col, Ltd. et al.

October 9, 2020

Plaintiff state filed complaint in state court, alleging that the defendant manufacturers of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy from 1996 through 2006. The State sought civil forfeitures for violations of the state Antitrust Act; statutory penalties for violations of SCUTPA and restitution on behalf of South Carolina citizens for violations of SCUTPA, Defendants removed the case pursuant to CAFA, alleging it was a class action and mass action under CAFA because the real parties in interest are the state citizens who will receive restitution. The district court remanded the case to state court, on the grounds that the state had a quasi sovereign interest in the case and was the real party in interest. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision, in part because the relief available to the state was available to it alone. The case is stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics.

Read More →

South Carolina v. AU Optronics et al.,

October 9, 2020

Plaintiff state filed complaint in state court, alleging that the defendant manufacturers of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy from 1996 through 2006. The State sought civil forfeitures for violations of the state Antitrust Act; statutory penalties for violations of SCUTPA and restitution on behalf of South Carolina citizens for violations of SCUTPA, Defendants removed the case pursuant to CAFA, alleging it was a class action and mass action under CAFA because the real parties in interest are the state citizens who will receive restitution. The district court remanded the case to state court, on the grounds that the state had a quasi sovereign interest in the case and was the real party in interest. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision, in part because the relief available to the state was available to it alone. The case is stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics.

Read More →