In Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co. Inc., Beckton Dickinson & Co. Inc. has reached a $45 million settlement with direct purchasers in five antitrust suits accusing the medical device maker of monopolizing the market for hypodermic products by providing incentives and paying kickbacks to GPOs in return for selling BD products […]
Author Archives: Steve Semeraro
Robinson-Patman Violation in Food Service Industry
May 2, 2009 – 2:46 pm
In Feesers Inc. v. Michael Foods Inc. et al., Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Sylvia H. Rambo found that Michael Foods Inc., an egg and potato product supplier and Sodexo Inc., a food services giant, violated the Robinson-Patman Act by engaging in unlawful price discrimination, where Michael Foods was selling supplies to Sodexo at a lower price than to […]
Sister Pipeline Companies Can’t Conspire Despite Regulatory Duty to Operate Separately
April 28, 2009 – 1:34 pm
Judge Robert Chambers, Southern District of West Virginia, has held that sister gas pipeline companies are a single entity, incapable of conspiring under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies conspired to park gas in the pipeline during periods when prices were low, and that under federal energy regulations, the […]
DOJ Confirms Investigation of Blood Reagent Industry
April 27, 2009 – 3:28 pm
A DOJ Antitrust Division spokesperson confirmed that the Division had opened the investigation. According to published reports, Immunological diagnostic medical device manufacturer Immucor confirmed receiving a subpoena.
Sherman Act Challenge in Pittsburgh Health Care Market
April 27, 2009 – 3:22 pm
West Penn Allegheny Health Systems filed suit in Western Pennsylvania District Court, against Pittsburgh’s dominant hospital system, UPMC, and Highmark Inc., the city’s dominant health insurer, accusing both defendants of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, by conspiring to monopolize and an attempting to monopolize Pittsburgh’s healthcare market. According to the complaint, since at […]
Criminal Big Rigging Case Filed Against Refuse Cart Repair Company Executives
April 27, 2009 – 2:39 pm
In U.S. v. Steven Fenzl and Douglas Ritter, a Northern Disctrict of Illinois grand jury indicted two executives from an Illinois garbage cart repair company on charges of conspiracy, mail fraid and wire fraud for conspiring to rig the city of Chicago’s competitive bidding process that enlists private companies to fix roll-out refuse carts. DOJ […]
Settlement of MMA & Acrylic Cartel Litigation
April 27, 2009 – 2:22 pm
In In re: Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court seeking approval of four separate settlement agreements totalling $15.1 million to settle a long-running class action against four chemical companies. The suit sought damages and injunctive relief against the defendants for an alleged conspiacy to jack up the prices […]
Claim Buying Firm Launches Follow-on Suit in the Hydrogen Peroxide Cartel Litigation
April 27, 2009 – 2:19 pm
A Brussels-based private group and arm of the Belgian CDC that seeks private damages for cartel victims in Europe – Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC) – has launched a suit in regional court of first instance for Dusseldorf, Germany, against six alleged members of an international hydrogen peroxide cartel that has already been the targetof landmark fines from […]
Liquid Crystal Display Screen Producers Plead Guilty to Price Fixing
April 26, 2009 – 7:52 pm
Update April 2009: An LG executive has agreed to plead guilty, serve a 1 year prison sentence, and pay a $30,000 fine for his role in the LCD cartel. Update March 2009: Hitachi has agreed to pay a $31 million fine and cooperate in the investigation. LG, Sharp, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes all pled guilty […]
Fifth Circuit Dismisses Group Boycott Claim on Statute of Limitations Grounds
April 24, 2009 – 10:47 am
Rx.com, an internet drug supplier, argued that wholesalers engaged in an anticompetitive group boycott to exclude internet suppliers that would pose competition to their mail order businesses. The alleged boycott began in 2000, but the case was not filed until 2004, more than the 4 yeat statute of limitations period. The court held that the […]