Connecticut v. Mobilia, Inc. No. CV-81-0065134 (Conn. Super. Ct. New London Dist.)
Owner of mobile home park engaged in unlawful tying arrangement by conditioning the lease of rental site on the lessee’s agreement to purchase a mobile home from the park owner.
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.
Massachusetts v. Great American Insurance Group (Suffolk Superior Court)
State complaint alleged that in 2004, at the request of insurance broker Marsh & McLennan, Great American submitted a fake and intentionally uncompetitive quote to Norwood based semiconductor manufacturer Analog Devices. Great American submitted this fake bid to make another insurance company’s bid look competitive. In return for this favor, Marsh & McLennan steered another one of Analog Devices? insurance policies to Great American at a pre-determined price. Insurers such as Great American paid Marsh & McLennan lucrative contingent commissions based on the volume of business Marsh & McLennan placed with them. The state sought restitution, civil penalties, injunctive relief and costs. In May 2009, the case settled Under the terms of the settlement, Great American is required to pay $60,000 to Analog Devices and $116,000 to the state. The agreement also requires Great American to undertake conduct reforms aimed at preventing insurance bid rigging in excess casualty insurance. Among other
things, Great American is specifically prohibited from colluding with brokers or other insurance companies to unlawfully fix insurance prices and is required to retain certain records concerning its bidding 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.
Pennsylvania v. ACE Limited
Plaintiff state reached a settlement with ACE Limited in connection with ACE’s involvement with other insurers and brokers in a scheme to rig bids for excess casualty insurance. These illegal business practices occurred between 2000 and early 2004. In addition to the bid-rigging tactics, ACE also paid “contingent commissions,” which are payments that insurers pay to brokers and agents in addition to their base commissions. In exchange for the “contingent commissions,” brokers agreed to steer policies for excess casualty to ACE and increased premiums on existing policies. The agreement requires ACE to reform its business practices. Ace will now disclose to any client, who asks how much it is paying in compensation to a broker or non-exclusive agent on that client’s insurance business and will etablish a toll-free telephone number that policyholders can request disclosure of compensation information.
Connecticut v. B-G Mechanical Services
State settled allegations of bid-rigging in the market for HVAC services for municipal and private business customers.
Connecticut v. Haggett
Plaintiff state filed suit alleging industry-wide illegal bid rigging by companies and individuals in the heating, ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC) business over the course of several years. Some defendants have settled for $160,000 in civil penalties
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.
People ex rel. Spitzer v. Acordia and Wells Fargo (NY Sup. Ct.)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
Connecticut, Illinois & New York v. St. Paul Travelers
Plaintiff states charged St. Paul Travelers with illegal business steering, customer allocation, and bid rigging in the market for small business. The states alleged, and St. Paul Travelers did not deny, that millions of dollars in “contingent commissions” were paid to a number of brokers who “steered” business to St. Paul Travelers. Under the customer allocation scheme, Travelers was one of the insurers (with The Hartford and CNA) who secretly agreed with a broker to divide up the brokers small business customers in exchange for paying greater undisclosed contingent commissions to the broker.
