People of the State of California v. EBay, Inc., No. CV12-5874 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012)
State filed suit (simultaneous with USDOJ suit) alleging EBay and Intuit agreed from 2008 to 2009 not to hire one another’s employees. This agreement, allegedly enforced at the highest levels in the companies, prevented employees from seeking positions at the other companies. USDOJ filed a separate suit, but California’s seeks to enforce California laws which contain stronger protections against anti-competitive conduct than federal law. California reached a settlement with eBay for approximately $4 million in restitution to employees, damages for harm to the state’s economy, and civil penalties
Washington v. National Express Group, No. 2:12-cv-00757 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2012)
National Express, a national provider of school bus services, sought to acquire Petermann Partners. After an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Washington and Texas Attorneys General, the parties agreed with USDOJ to sell eight school bus transportation contracts in the states of Texas and Washington to Student Transportation of America Inc. (STA). Under a separate consent decree with the state of Washington, the parties also agreed to notify the Attorney General of Washington before any future acquisitions for the next ten years. The parties also agreed not to take any action to impede a successful bidder on a contract from obtaining leased depot and repair facilities.
Texas et al. v. Penguin Group et al., No. 1:12-cv-03394-DLC (S.D.N.Y, Apr. 30, 2012)
TTexas and Connecticut led 33 state group that filed complaint charging three of the nation’s largest book publishers and Apple Inc. with colluding to fix the sales prices of electronic books. The States undertook a two-year investigation into allegations that the defendants conspired to raise e-book prices. Retailers had long sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers, not publishers, set e-book sales prices. The states alleged that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at $12.99 and $14.99. When Apple prepared to enter the e-book market, the publishers and Apple agreed to adopt an agency distribution model as a mechanism to allow them to fix prices. To enforce their price-fixing scheme, the publishers and Apple relied on contract terms that forced all e-book outlets to sell their products at the same price. Because the publishers agreed to use the same prices, retail price competition was eliminated. According to the States’ enforcement action, the coordinated agreement to fix prices resulted in e-book customers paying more than $100 million in overcharges. The States’ antitrust action seeks injunctive relief, damages for customers who paid artificially inflated prices for e-books and civil penalties. Case was filed in W.D. Tex., transferred to S.D.N.Y. as consolidated case. The States reached settlements with the five publishers, which granted E-book outlets greater freedom to reduce the prices of their E-book titles. Consumers nationwide received a total of $164 million in compensation. After entering into settlement agreement with all the Defendant publishers, DOJ and the states had a nearly 3 week trial against Apple in June 2013, during which numerous witnesses took the stand. On July 10, 2013, a decision was handed down in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and the states against Apple. Trial of the damages phase is pending. United States et al. v. Apple, Inc., 12-CV-2826 (S.D.N.Y.).
U.S. and Montana v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, No.
USDOJ and Montana sued to prevent agreement between BCBS of Montana and New West, two of three competitors in the Montana health insurance market. Five of the six hospital owners of New West had agreed to purchase health insurance from Blue Cross exclusively for six years. once the five hospital owners stopped purchasing health insurance from New West, they likely would have significantly reduced their support for New West and its efforts to win commercial health-insurance customers. These anticompetitive effects would have been exacerbated by a provision in the parties’ agreement that requires Blue Cross to give the hospital owners two seats on Blue Cross’ board of directors if the hospitals do not compete with Blue Cross in the sale of commercial health insurance. DOJ and Montana required that New West promptly divest its remaining commercial health-insurance business to an acquirer with the intent and capability to be an effective competitor. The hospital owners must enter three-year contracts with the acquirer to provide health-care services on terms that are substantially similar to their existing contractual terms with New West. At the acquirer’s option, New West and the five hospital owners must also use their best efforts to assign the health-care provider contracts that are not under their control to the acquirer or to lease New West’s provider network to the acquirer for up to three years. Under the proposed settlement, Blue Cross must notify the department and the state of Montana before it uses exclusive contracts with health-insurance brokers, or exclusive or most-favored-nation provisions in its agreements with health-care providers.
In re GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc. (Municipal Bond Derivatives)
Starting in 2008, the states investigated the municipal bond derivatives market, where tax exempt entities like governments and nonprofit organizations issue bonds and reinvest the proceeds until the funds are needed or enter into contracts to hedge interest rate risk on bonds. GE Funding is the fifth financial institution to settle with the multistate working group in the ongoing municipal bond derivatives investigation following Bank of America, UBS AG, JP Morgan and Wachovia.
The investigation revealed conspiratorial and fraudulent conduct involving individuals at financial institutions and certain brokers with whom they had working relationships. The states’ investigation developed evidence that certain traders at GE Funding, in concert with certain brokers, engaged in conduct that allowed the broker to determine in advance that GE Funding would win a bid for a guaranteed investment contract. The conduct allowed GE Funding to submit a “last look’’ bid, while the broker arranged for other financial institutions to submit purposely non-winning courtesy bids. Because of the “last look,” on many occasions GE Funding was able to lower its bid to the issuer and still win the transaction.The misconduct led state and local entities, such as municipalities, counties, school districts and other government agencies, as well as nonprofits, to enter into municipal derivatives contracts on less advantageous terms than they would have otherwise.
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. AT&T, No. 11-01560 (D.D.C, 2011)
AT&T sought to acquire T-Mobile. The transaction would have combined two of the only four wireless carriers with nationwide networks. US DOJ and six states filed suite to block the merger. The parties abandoned the merger three months later.
In re J.P. Morgan Chase (Municipal Bond Derivatives)
Starting in 2008, the states investigated the municipal bond derivatives market, where tax exempt entities like governments and nonprofit organizations issue bonds and reinvest the proceeds until the funds are needed or enter into contracts to hedge interest rate risk on bonds.
The investigation revealed conspiratorial and fraudulent conduct involving individuals at JPMC, other financial institutions, and certain brokers with whom they had working relationships. The states alleged that certain JPMC employees and their counterparts at other institutions rigged bids, submitted noncompetitive courtesy bids and fraudulent certificates of arms-length bidding to government agencies. The misconduct led state and local entities, such as municipalities, counties, school districts and other government agencies, as well as nonprofits, to enter into municipal derivatives contracts on less advantageous terms than they would have otherwise. The $66.5 million multistate settlement is one component of a coordinated settlements (totaling $92 million) between JPMC and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), as well as the states.
Connecticut v. Galante, No. X04-HHD-CV-09-5033841-S (Ct. Super. Ct. Hartford, April 11, 2011)
In 2009, Connecticut sued James E. Galante, former owner of waste disposal companies operating in the Dan bury area, for alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Antitrust Act. The lawsuit alleged that in 2002 and 2004, Galante ordered his employees at AWD and Thomas to raise prices by 10 percent for certain commercial customers under the false representation that they were mandatory increases for disposal-site costs. The lawsuit also alleged two incidents of bid-rigging by American Disposal Services of Connecticut, another Galante-owned company, in attempts to secure waste-hauling contracts. Under terms of the settlement, the state received $600,000 to be distributed to an estimated 500 commercial customers of Galante’s former companies: Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. and Thomas Refuse Services Inc.The settlement was timed to the federal government’s sale of these and other companies forfeited by Galante as part of his 2008 guilty plea to federal racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and wire-fraud conspiracy for his role in orchestrating a scheme to drive up trash-removal prices.
Hawaii v. ACE Holdings, Inc., No. 07-1-2015-10 (Cir. Ct. 1st Cir. Hawaii, Oct. 25, 2007)
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.
U.S. and Texas v. United Regional Healthcare System, No. 7:11-cv-00030 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 25, 2011)
USDOJ and Texas reached a settlement with United Regional Health Care System of Wichita Falls, Texas, that prohibits it from entering into contracts that improperly inhibit commercial health insurers from contracting with United Regional’s competitors. Plaintiffs alleged that United Regional unlawfully used these contracts to maintain its monopoly for hospital services in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
