aai working paper no. 10-03 abstract: indirect … of the...abstract: indirect purchaser class...

1

!

AAI Working Paper No. 10-03 ABSTRACT: Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlements Author: Patrick E. Cafferty, Cafferty Faucher LLP Consumers and business entities at the bottom of a chain of distribution — i.e., those who cannot “pass on” overcharges — often bear the full financial brunt of antitcompetitive activity. Unless they purchased goods or services directly from the alleged antitrust violators, however, they are “indirect purchasers” who lack standing to bring suit for damages under the federal antitrust laws. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). In California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that Illinois Brick interpreted federal antitrust law only and states could allow indirect purchasers to seek damages under state law. Several states and the District of Columbia reaffirmed an indirect purchaser’s right to recover damages by passing “Illinois Brick repealer” statutes that expressly allow for indirect purchaser actions. Even where no “repealer” statute has been enacted, some state courts have interpreted their state’s antitrust laws to allow for indirect purchaser standing. See, e.g., Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002); Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). State law indirect purchaser actions are an important component of antitrust enforcement, especially in cases where direct purchasers’ continuing business relationship with the antitrust violators blunts any incentive to bring suit. Moreover, utilizing class action procedures, indirect purchaser class actions can provide redress to the targeted victims of unlawful conduct. The purpose of this paper is to compile a comprehensive list of indirect purchaser class action settlements, including the amount of money (or other consideration) recovered for classes. This project began in 2005 at the request of counsel for the Antitrust Modernization Commission and was intended to respond to the contentions made by corporate interests that indirect purchaser antitrust actions benefitted only plaintiffs’ attorneys and resulted in, at best, cy pres recoveries for the indirect benefit of the class members. Accordingly, this listing attempts to include both the method of distribution of settlement proceeds and the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. While cy pres distributions are sometimes necessary, many cases (especially in the area of pharmaceuticals) provide for cash distributions to class members. The settlements listed below have recovered an aggregate value $4,363,237,265 since the mid-1990s. This total consists of $2,069,252,500 in cash, $163,464,000 worth of product (i.e., infant formula and prescription drugs) and $2,130,520,765 in Microsoft vouchers. One development since 2005 is worthy of comment: the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), which became effective February 18, 2005, greatly

2

expanded federal jurisdiction over state law class actions. As class actions are the primary avenue for assertion of indirect purchaser antitrust claims, opportunities for state courts to interpret their own states’ antitrust statutes will likely be few and far between. This development may impede — or at least freeze in place — judicial development of indirect purchaser antitrust law. This list was compiled with assistance from attorneys Bernard Persky (Labaton Sucharow LLP) and Daniel Gustafson (Gustafson and Gluek PLLC) and includes: (1) cases in which one or more of our firms appeared as counsel; (2) cases that we have discerned from public sources (such as the Internet and legal research databases); and (3) information received from other practitioners. Where possible, we have sorted state court cases according to common underlying facts. While the information on the list is accurate to the best of our knowledge, information and belief, we are certain that we have not captured many cases, especially in California which has a long-standing history of indirect purchaser antitrust class actions. See, e.g., B.W.I. Custom Kitchen v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 3d 1341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). We expressly request feedback from anyone with information about a settlement that should be added to the list. Date: June 2006 (revised June 2010) Keywords: Indirect purchaser, class action, settlements, attorneys’ fees Author Contact: Patrick Cafferty ([email protected]) AAI working papers are works in progress that will eventually be revised and published elsewhere. They do not necessarily represent the position of the American Antitrust Institute.

SETTLEMENTS OF INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST CLASS ACTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. NATIONAL AND MULTISTATE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS IN FEDERAL COURT ........................................................................................................1 B. STATE COURT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS (ORGANIZED BY

RELATEDNESS OF CASES) .............................................................................................9

1. INFANT FORMULA ..................................................................................9 2. BRAND-NAME PRESCRIPTION DRUGS .................................13 3. VITAMINS ....................................................................................17 4. MICROSOFT .................................................................................25 5. SORBATES ...................................................................................30 6. MISCELLANEOUS ......................................................................31 SETTLEMENT TOTALS .............................................................................................................32

Settlements of Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Actions Under State Law — June 2010 -1-

SETTLEMENTS OF INDIRECT PURCHASERANTITRUST CLASS ACTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

A. NATIONAL AND MULTISTATE CLASS SETTLEMENTS IN FEDERAL COURT.Case Nature of

AllegationsGovernmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaser orCompetitorAction(s)

Type of Class Amount ofSettlement

DistributionMethod

Attorneys’Fees

In re Lorazepam &Clorazepate AntitrustLitig., 205 F.R.D. 369(D.D.C. 2002) Defendant Mylansecured exclusivecontract fromsupplier of activeingredient anddrasticallyincreased priceafter competitorswere frozen out ofthe market

Civil actions by FTCand state AGs; directpurchaser classactionnationwide class ofconsumers and third-party payors ofprescription drugsLorazepam andClorazepate

$135,285,600($72,000,000 forconsumers and$28,000,000 for stateagencies;$25,285,600 forthird-party payors inIllinois Brickrepealer states; and$10,000,000 forTPPs in non-IllinoisBrick repealer states)

Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess7.4% (15% of$25 million;22.5% of $10million and4% of $100million[althoughthese feeswere paidseparately bydefendants])

In re Cardizem CDAntitrust Litig., 218F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich.2003), app. dismissed,391 F.3d 812 (6th Cir.2004)(cardizemsettlement.com)

Brandmanufacturer(Aventis) paidgenericmanufacturer(Andrx) towithholdmarketing ofgeneric version ofCardizem CD

competitor action;FTC civil action;actions by state AGs(following grant ofpartial summaryjudgment in favor ofcivil plaintiffs);direct purchaser classaction

nationwideconsumers and third-party payors ofprescription drugCardizem CD$80,000,000($7,000,000 stateagencies;$40,150,000 thirdparty payors; and$32,850,000consumers)

Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess17%

Case Nature ofAllegations Governmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaser orCompetitorAction(s)Type of Class Amount ofSettlement DistributionMethod Attorneys’Fees


In re Warfarin Sodium

Antitrust Litig., 212F.R.D. 231 (D. Del.2002), aff’d, 391 F.3d516 (3d Cir. 2004)coumadinsettlement.com

Brandmanufacturer tooksteps to detersubstitution ofgeneric versions ofCoumadin

competitor action nationwide class ofconsumers and third-party payors ofprescription drugCoumadin$44,500,000 Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess

22.5%

In re Buspirone Patent

Litig., MDL No. 1410(S.D.N.Y.)Brandmanufacturer(Bristol MyersSquibb) paidgenericmanufacturer(Schein) towithdraw efforts tomarket genericversion of BuSpar;listing of phonypatents tounlawfully extendmonopoly

Direct purchaserclass action; civilactions by severalstate attorneysgeneralnationwide class ofthird-party payorsand multistate classof consumers ofprescription drugBuSpar

$100,000,000 (forconsumers in moststates and stateagencies by attorneysgeneral);$90,000,000($74,000,000 forthird-party payors;and $16,000,000 forconsumers inremaining states)

Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess20% (of $90million)

Vista Healthplan, Inc.

v. Bristol-Myers Squibb

Co., 287 F. Supp.2d 65(D.D.C. 2003)Bristol MyersSquib listed phonypatents tounlawfully extendmonopoly forTaxol

Direct purchaseraction, state attorneysgeneral civil actionnationwide class ofconsumers ofprescription drugTaxol

$55,000,000(consumers byattorneys general);$15,185,000 (third-party payors)Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess

33.33% (of$15,185,000)



In re Lupron Marketing

and Sales Practices

Litig., 228 F.R.D. 75

(D. Mass. 2005)

lupronclaims.com

Drug

manufacturers

engaged in

unlawful tactics to

induce physicians

to administer

Lupron Depot at

inflated prices.

Federal criminal

charges and penalty

nationwide class of

consumers and third-

party payors of

prescription drug

Lupron Depot

$150,000,000 Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process

25%

Ryan-House v.

GlaxoSmithKline plc,

(“Augmentin

Litigation”) No.

2:02cv442m (E.D. Va.

Jan. 10, 2005)

augmentinlitigation.

com

GlaxoSmithKline

misled the Patent

Office into issuing

patents to protect

Augmentin® from

competition from

generic drug

substitutes.

Direct purchaser

class actions;

competitor actions

nationwide class of


party payors of

prescription drug

Augmentin

$29,000,000 Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process

25%



Nichols v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., No.00-6222, 2005 WL950616 (E.D. Pa. April22, 2005)paxilclaims.com

SmithKlineBeechamstockpiled,time-released, andcaused patents tobe listed in theOrange Book in amanner that hasenabled them toindefinitely extendtheir marketmonopoly ofPaxil®.

Direct purchaserclass action;competitor actions

nationwide class ofconsumers and third-party payors ofprescription drugPaxil

$65,000,000 Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess

30%

In re TerazosinAntitrust Litig., No. 99-D:-1317 (S.D. Fla. July8, 2005)terazosinlitigation.com)

Abbott entered intoagreements to paygenericmanufacturers(Zenith Goldlineand Geneva) tokeep lower pricedgenerics off themarket

FTC civil action,Direct purchaseraction, state attorneysgeneral civil action

multistate class ofconsumers and third-party payors ofprescription drugHytrin


30%



In re Remeron End-

Payor Antitrust Litig.,

No. 02-2007, 2005 WL

2230314 (D.N.J. Sept.

13, 2005)

remeronsettlement.

com

Organon USA Inc.

and Akzo Nobel

N.V. improperly

monopolized the

U.S. market for

Remeron®

Direct purchaser

action, state attorneys

general civil action

nationwide class of


party payors of

prescription drug

Remeron

$33,000,000 Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process

23.6%

In re Relafen Antitrust

Litig., 231 F.R.D. 52

(D. Mass. 2005)

relafensettlement.

com

GlaxoSmithKline

listed fraudulently

procured patent

and used it to

foreclose generic

competition in the

market for Relafen

(nabumetone)

Direct purchaser

class action;

competitor actions


party payors of

prescription drug

Relafen

$75,000,000 Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process &

subpoena of

transaction data

from retailers

and PBMs

33.3% of $67

million

Vista Healthplan, Inc.

v. Warner Holdings

Co., 246 F.R.D. 349

(D.D.C. 2007)

Conspiracy to

prevent generic

versions of Ovcon

35 from reaching

market

Direct purchaser

class action, FTC

enforcement action,

consumer class

action

third-party payors for

prescription drug

Ovcon 35

$4,200,000 ($3

million of which was

in the form of

product)

product

distributed to

healthcare

providers

26%



Sullivan v. DB

Investments, Inc., No.04-02819, 2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 81146(D.N.J. May 22, 2008)diamondsclassaction.com

Conspiracy to fix,raise and controlrhe price of gemdiamonds

Direct purchaserclass action

Indirect purchaserconsumers andretailers of diamondproducts


25% of totalfund lessexpenses

In re Plastic Additives

Antitrust Litig., No. 03-2038 (E.D. Pa. June 26,2008)

Plaintiffs allegeprice-fixing ofplastic additives


Indirect purchasersof plastic additives inseveral states

$325,000 Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess

30%

In re OSB Antitrust

Litig., No. 06-826(E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008)

Plaintiffs allegethat defendantsconspired to fix,raise maintain orstabilize prices fororiented strandboard (OSB)


Indirect purchaserend-users of orientedstrand board

$9,940,000(aggregate ofmultiple settlements)

Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess; some cypres

33.3%

In re Abbott

Laboratories Norvir

Antitrust Litig., No. 04-1511 (N.D. Cal. Aug.12, 2009)

AbbottLaboratories raisedNorvir prices in aneffort to restrictcompetition in themarket for proteaseinhibitors used totreat HIV patients.


consumers and third-party payors ofprescription drugNorvir used asbooster to otherprotease inhibitors

$10,000,000 cy pres to non-profitorganizationsservingHIV/AIDSpatients

30%



In re TriCor IndirectPurchaser AntitrustLitig., No. 05-360,

2009 WL 3460769 (D.

Del. Oct. 28, 2009)

(tricorsettlement.com)

Abbott

Laboratories

repeatedly changed

its formulations of

TriCor

(fenofibrate) to

foreclose generic

competition

Direct purchaser

class action;

competitor actions;

state attorneys

general civil action


party payors of

prescription drug

TriCor

$67,300,000 Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process &

transaction data

from insurers

and retailers

33.3%

In re BP PropaneIndirect PurchaserAntitrust Litig., No. 06-

3541 (Feb. 10, 2010

N.D. Ill.)

(bpindirectpropanesettl

ement.com)

BP Products

attempted to corner

the market on

physical propane

Direct purchaser

class action

Persons or entities

who purchased

propane for anyone

unrelated to BP

Products

$15,250,000 Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process

33%

In re New MotorVehicles CanadianExport Antitrust Litig.,MDL No. 1532 (D.

Me.)

Auto

manufacturers

conspired to

preclude imports

of new vehicles

from Canada

No Persons or entities

that purchased

certain motor

vehicles

$35,700,000 (partial

settlement with

Toyota and Canadian

Automobile Dealers’

Association only;

approval pending)

Direct

distribution of

cash proceeds

through claims

process, cy pres

for some states



In re Vitamins AntitrustLitig. (Richardson et al.v. Akzo Nobel Inc. etal.), MDL No. 1285,

Misc. No. 99-197

(D.D.C.)

(indirectvitaminsettlem

ent.org)*

Horizontal price-

fixing and market

allocation

conspiracy among

vitamin

manufacturers

(related to state

cases addressed

below)

Direct purchaser

class action, state

attorneys general

actions

Persons and entities

that purchased

vitamin products

$25,030,000

(approval pending,

hearing held June 18,

2010)

Direct

distribution to

commercial

purchasers; cy

pres for

consumers

In re Static RandomAccess Memory(SRAM) AntitrustLitig., No. 07-1819

(N.D. Cal.)

(indirectsramcase.com)

Plaintiffs alleged

conspiracy to fix,

raise maintain or

stabilize prices of

SRAM

Direct purchaser

class action


that indirectly

purchased SRAM

from one of several

defendants

$25,422,000

(approval pending,

hearing scheduled for

September 30, 2010

Reserved

pending further

litigation

In re Dynamic RandomAccesss Memory(DRAM) AntitrustLitig., No. 02-1486

(N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs alleged

conspiracy to fix,

raise maintain or

stabilize prices of

DRAM

Direct purchaser

class action, state

attorneys general

actions


that indirectly

purchased DRAM

from one of several

defendants

$173,000,000

(proposed settlement

announced June 24,

2010 for 33 state

attorneys general and

private plaintiffs;

approval pending)

Distributions to

consumers,

businesses, state

and local

governments,

school districts,

colleges and

universities are

contemplated

Total of amount of settlements in indirect purchaser class actions as

listed above:

Cash: $1,538,337,600 Product: $3,000,000* See also state court vitamins settlements, p. 17, infra.


B. STATE COURT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS (ORGANIZED BY RELATEDNESS OF CASES)

1. INFANT FORMULA

Infant Formula Case Nature of Allegations Governmental

(Civil/Criminal),

Direct Purchaser

or Competitor

Action(s)

Type of Class Amount of

Settlement

Distribution

Method

Attorneys’

Fees

Durrett v. AbbottLaboratories, et. al, No. 93-

663 (Cir. Ct. Calhoun

County) and Lauderdale v.Abbott Laboratories, et al.,No. 95-652 (Cir. Ct.

Calhoun County, Ala.)

Horizontal price-fixing

conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Alabama state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula

product valued

at $500,000

product

distributed free

of charge

through food

bank

none

In re CaliforniaIndirect-Purchaser InfantFormula Antitrust ClassAction Litig. J.C .C.P. No.

2557 (L.A.Sup.Ct.1993)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

California state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula

$20,000,000 Claims

procedure for

distribution of

funds

[not available]

Stifflear v. Bristol-MyersSquibb et al., No. 94-CV-

360 (Dist. Ct. Boulder

County, Col.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Colorado state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula

product valued

at $600,000

product

distributed free

of charge

through food

bank

none

Infant Formula Case Nature of Allegations Governmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaseror Competitor Action(s)Type of Class Amount ofSettlement DistributionMethod Attorneys’Fees


Mack v. Bristol-Myers

Squibb Co. et al., 94-581-CA (Cir. Ct. OkaloosaCounty, Fla.)

Horizontal price-fixingconspiracy amonginfant formulamanufacturers

Direct purchaserclass actions

Florida state-wideclass of retailpurchasers infantformula

$5,000,000 andproduct valuedat $2,300,000

claims procedurefor distributionof funds;productdistributed freeof chargethrough foodbank

33% of $5million

Vogt v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No. 94-L-404 (Cir. Ct. St. ClairCounty, Ill.)



Illinois state-wideclass of retailpurchasers infantformula

$12,940,000 claims procedurefor distributionof funds

33.33%

Donelan v. Abbott

Laboratories, No. 94 C 709(Dist. Ct. Sedgwick County,Kan.)



Kansas state-wideclass of retailpurchasers infantformula

product valuedat $1,000,000

productdistributed freeof chargethrough foodbank

none

Lambert v. Abbott

Laboratories, et. al., No.94-CI-05684 (Cir. Ct.Jefferson County, Ken.)



Kentucky state-wide class ofretail purchasersinfant formula

product valuedat $700,000


none

Holmes v. Abbott

Laboratories, No. 94-774-CP (Cir. Ct. CalhounCounty, Mich.)



Michigan state-wide class ofretail purchasersinfant formula

product valuedat $2,700,000


none



Humphrey ex. rel. State of

Minnesota v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No.

C8-95-6810 (Dist. Ct.

Ramsey County, Minn.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Minnesota state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula

$9,700,000 claims procedure

for distribution

of funds

33.33%

Moore ex rel. State of

Mississippi v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No.

251-96-159 (Cir. Ct. Hinds

County, Miss.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Mississippi state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula


for distribution

of funds

33.33%

DeVincenzi v. Abbott

Laboratories, et. al., CV-

94-02528 (Dist. Ct. Washoe

County, Nev.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Nevada state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula

product valued

at $254,000

product

distributed free

of charge

through food

bank

none

Hyde v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No. 94

CVS 500 (Sup. Ct. Jackson

County, N.C.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

North Carolina

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers infant

formula

product valued

at $1,410,000

product

distributed free

of charge

through food

bank

none

Heilman and Leintz v.

Abbott Laboratories, et al.,

No. 94-C-2716 (Dist. Ct.

Burleigh County, N.D)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

North Dakota

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers infant

formula

$740,000 claims procedure

for distribution

of funds

33.33%



Hagemann v. Abbott

Laboratories, No. 94-221

(Cir. Ct. Hughes County,

S.D.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

South Dakota

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers infant

formula


for distribution

of funds

33.33%

Blake v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No. L-

8950 (Cir. Ct. Blount

County, Tenn.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Tennessee state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula

$2,000,000 and

product valued

at $1,000,000

claims procedure

for distribution

of funds;

product

distributed free

of charge

through food

bank

33% of $2

million

Buscher v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No. 94-

C-221 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha

County, W.Va.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

West Virginia

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers infant

formula


for distribution

of funds

33.33%

Carlson v. Abbott

Laboratories, No. 94-CV-

002608 (Cir. Ct. Milwaukee

County) and French v.

Abbott Laboratories, et al.,

No. 94-CV-009007 (Cir. Ct.

Milwaukee County, Wisc.)


conspiracy among

infant formula

manufacturers

Direct purchaser

class actions

Wisconsin state-

wide class of

retail purchasers

infant formula


for distribution

of funds

33.33%

Total of Indirect Purchaser Infant Formula Settlements listed above: Product: $10,464,000; Cash: $68,120,000


2. BRAND-NAME PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

BNPD Case Nature of Allegations Governmental

(Civil/Criminal),

Direct Purchaser

or Competitor

Action(s)


Settlement

Distribution

Method

Attorneys’

Fees

McLaughlin v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No. CV

95-0628 (Super. Ct.,

Yavapai County, Az)

Horizontal conspiracy

among brand

manufacturers to refuse

discounts to “retail

class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs

$8,409,900 distribution

through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

25%

Preciado v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., Case

No. 962294 (San Francisco

Sup. Ct., Cal.)


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs

Product valued

at approximately

$150,000,000

and

approximately

$25,000,000 in

cashGoda v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No.

01445-96 (Super. Ct., D.C.)


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

District of

Columbia class of

retail purchasers

of brand-name

prescription drugs


through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

25%

BNPD Case Nature of Allegations Governmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaseror Competitor Action(s)Type of Class Amount ofSettlement DistributionMethod Attorneys’Fees


Yasbin v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No. 97-01141 CA 03 (Cir. Ct.,Dade County, Fla.)

Horizontal conspiracyamong brandmanufacturers to refusediscounts to “retailclass of trade”

Pharmaciesbrought directpurchaser actionsand Robinson-Patman Act actions

state-wide classof retailpurchasers ofbrand-nameprescription drugs

$8,904,600 distributionthroughcommunityhealth centers tosubsidize cost ofpatientprescriptions

25%

Holdren v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No.96C15994 (Dist. Ct.,Johnson County, Kan.)





25%

Karofsky v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No.CV-95-1009 (Super. Ct.,Cumberland County,Maine);




$989,400 distributionthroughcommunityhealth centers tosubsidize cost ofpatientprescriptions

25%

Wood v. Abbott

Laboratories, et al., No. 96-512561-CZ (Cir. Ct.,Oakland County, Mich.)





25%



Kerr v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No. 96-

2837 (Dist. Ct., Hennepin

County, Minn) andFontaine v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No. 97-

012124 (Dist. Ct., Hennepin

County, Minn.)


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs


through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

25%

Levine v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No. 95-

117320 (Sup. Ct., New

York County, N.Y.)


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs


through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

25%

Long v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No. 97-

CVS-8289 (Super. Ct.,

Mecklenburg County,

N.C.);


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs


through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

10%

Meyers v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No.

97C612 (Cir. Ct., Davidson

County, Tenn.)


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs


through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

25%



Scholfield v. AbbottLaboratories, et al., No. 96

CV 0460 (Cir. Ct., Dane

County, Wisc.)


among brand



class of trade”

Pharmacies

brought direct

purchaser actions

and Robinson-

Patman Act actions

state-wide class

of retail

purchasers of

brand-name

prescription drugs


through

community

health centers to

subsidize cost of

patient

prescriptions

25%

Total of Indirect Purchaser BNPD settlements listed above: Product: $150,000,000; Cash: $89,311,000


3. VITAMINSVitamins Case Nature of Allegations Governmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaseror Competitor Action(s)Type of Class Amount ofSettlement DistributionMethod Attorneys’Fees

Richardson v. F. Hoffmann-

La Roche, et al., No. CV99-

06005 (Super.Ct. Maricopa

County, Az)


and market allocation

conspiracy among

vitamin manufacturers

Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$8,446,250

($3,318,250 for

commercial

entities;

$4,692,000 for

consumers; and

$436,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Vitamin Cases, No. 301803

(Sup. Ct. San Francisco

County, California)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$80,000,000

($42,000,000 for

commercial

entities; and

$38,000,000 for

consumers)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Giral v. Hoffmann-La

Roche, et al., No. 98 CA

007467 (Sup. Ct. D.C.)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

district-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$2,021,450

($1,451,450 for

commercial

entities;

$522,000 for

consumers; and

$48,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Vitamins Case Nature of Allegations Governmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaseror Competitor Action(s)Type of Class Amount ofSettlement DistributionMethod Attorneys’Fees


Garofolo et al., v. F.

Hoffmann-Laroche, Ltd., et

al., No. 99-010358 (07)

(Cir. Ct. Broward County,

Fl)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$24,772,500

($8,391,500 for

commercial

entities;

$14,988,000 for

consumers; and

$1,393,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

State of Hawaii v. Hoffman-

La Roche, et al., Civil No.

01-1-001594 (1 Dist. Cir.st

Ct. Haw.)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$1,306,000

($1,195,000 for

consumers; and

$111,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

State of Idaho v. Daiichi

Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,

No. CV 0C 01031630 (4th

Jud. Dist. Idaho, Ada

County)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$1,855,050

($505,050 for

commercial

entities;

$1,235,000 for

consumers; and

$115,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)



State of Illinois v.

Hoffmann-La Roche, et al.,

No. 01CH08502 (Cir. Ct.

Cook County, Ill.)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$22,989,750

($9,759,750 for

commercial

entities;

$12,105,000 for

consumers; and

$1,125,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Todd v. F. Hoffman-La

Roche, et al., Case No. 98 C

4574 (Dist. Ct. Wyandotte

County, Kansas)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$6,386,600

($3,499,600 for

commercial

entities;

$2,642,000 for

consumers; and

$245,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Headrick v. F. Hoffman-La

Roche, et al., No. CV-99-

148 (Super. Ct. Cumberland

County, Maine)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$1,697,050

($336,050 for

commercial

entities;

$1,245,000 for

consumers; and

$116,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)



Bascomb v. F. Hoffman-La

Roche, et al., Consolidated

Case Nos. 99-906364 Cz,

99-917982 NZ (Cir. Ct.

Wayne County, Mich)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$15,808,450

($5,026,450 for

commercial

entities;

$9,865,000 for

consumers; and

$917,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

In re: The Minnesota

Vitamin Antitrust Litigation,

Court File No. CA-00-1800

(GEJ) (2d Jud. Dist. Ct.

Ramsey County, Minn)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$8,796,900

($3,604,900 for

commercial

entities;

$4,751,000 for

consumers; and

$441,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

State of Nevada v.


Case No. 01-00723A (1st

Jud. Dist. Ct. Carson

County, Nevada)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$2,577,500

($656,500 for

commercial

entities;

$1,758,000 for

consumers; and

$163,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)



In re: New Mexico Vitamins

Indirect Purchasers

Antitrust Litigation, Case

No. CV 99-12056 (2d Jud.

Dist. Ct., Bernalillo County,

NM)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$4,035,500

($2,125,500 for

commercial

entities;

$1,748,000 for

consumers; and

$162,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Scanlon v. F. Hoffman-La

Roche, et al., Index No.

99/1237 (Sup. Ct. NY,

Albany County)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$31,119,550

($11,158,550 for

commercial

entities;

$18,264,000 for

consumers; and

$1,697,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Nicholson v. F. Hoffman-La

Roche, et al., Case No. 99-

CVS-3592 (Super. Ct. Div.

Mecklenburg County, NC)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$12,995,650

($4,706,650 for

commercial

entities;

$7,584,000 for

consumers; and

$705,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)



O’Neill v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, et al., Civil No. 99-

C-1673 (Dist. Ct. Burleigh

County, ND)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$1,264,500

($561,500 for

commercial

entities;

$643,000 for

consumers; and

$60,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Commonwealth of PuertoRico v. F. Hoffman-LaRuche, et al., Civil No.

KAC2000-1881 (Tribunal

de Primera Instancia Sala

Superior de San Juan)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

territory-wide

class of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$5,945,150

($1,762,150 for

commercial

entities;

$3,827,000 for

consumers; and

$356,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

State of Rhode Island andProvidence Plantations v.Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A., et al., No. 00-5781

(Super. Ct. Providence,

R.I.)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$1,583,900

($497,900 for

commercial

entities;

$994,000 for

consumers; and

$92,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)



Chaffee v. F. Hoffman-La

Roche, et al., No. 99-221

(Cir. Court Meade County,

S.D.)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$1,471,100

($659,100 for

commercial

entities;

$743,000 for

consumers; and

$69,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

McCampbell v. F. Hoffman

La-Roche et al., Case No.

16,628 (Cir. Ct. Jefferson

County, Tenn)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$8,951,350

($2,989,350 for

commercial

entities;

$5,455,000 for

consumers; and

$507,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

State of Vermont v. Daiichi

Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,

No. 292-6-01 W (Super. Ct.

Washington County, VT)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$916,100

($269,100 for

commercial

entities;

$592,000 for

consumers; and

$55,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)



State of Washington v.


No. 01-2-13960-6 SEA

(Super. Ct. King County,

WA)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$8,256,150

($2,009,150 for

commercial

entities;

$5,716,000 for

consumers; and

$531,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Archer v. F. Hoffmann-La

Roche, et al., Civil Action

No. 99-C-327 (Cir. Ct.

Kanawha County, WV)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$4,067,000

($2,080,000 for

commercial

entities;

$1,818,000 for

consumers; and

$169,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

In re Vitamin Product

Antitrust Litigation, Case

No. 98-CV-7792 (Cir. Ct.

Milwaukee County, WI)



conspiracy among


Federal criminal

charges, direct

purchaser actions

and civil actions

by state attorneys

general

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

price-fixed

vitamin products

$10,318,700

($4,587,700 for

commercial

entities;

$5,244,000 for

consumers; and

$487,000 for

State Economic

Impact Fund)

Direct

distribution

through claims

process for

business entities;

cy pres

programs for

consumer

recovery

16.67% (not

out of common

fund but paid

by defendants)

Total of Indirect Purchaser Vitamins Settlements listed above: $267,582,150.00


4. MICROSOFT (www.microsoft.com/mscorp/legal/class/#head1)Microsoft Case Nature of

Allegations

Governmental

(Civil/Criminal),

Direct Purchaser

or Competitor

Action(s)

Type of

Class

Amount of

Settlement

Distribution M ethod Attorneys’ Fees

In re ArizonaMicrosoft Litig., No.00-0722. (Super. Ct.Maracopa County,Az)Abuse of monopolypower and unlawfultie-in of internetbrowser software

Civil action byfederal and stateauthorities; directpurchaser actionsstate-wideclass ofsoftwarepurchasers

up to$104,600,000in vouchersvouchers can be redeemedfor cash in connection withpurchases of qualifyinghardware or software; halfthe value of unclaimedbenefits distributed todisadvantaged schools

Microsoft to pay feeagreed upon orotherwise awarded bycourt; notice indicatesrequest not to exceed$34.8 millionMicrosoft I-CCases, J.C.C.P. No.4106 (Super. Ct.San FranciscoCounty, Ca)

Abuse of monopolypower and unlawfultie-in of internetbrowser softwareCivil action byfederal and stateauthorities; directpurchaser actions

state-wideclass ofsoftwarepurchasersup to$1,100,000,000in vouchers

vouchers can be redeemedfor cash in connection withpurchases of qualifyinghardware or software; 2/3the value of unclaimedbenefits distributeddisadvantaged schools

Microsoft to pay feeagreed upon orotherwise awarded bycourt; notice indicatesrequest not to exceed$275 millionBernard v.Microsoft Corp.,Cummins v.Microsoft Corp.,Knight v. MicrosoftCorp. (SuperiorCourt, D.C.)


state-wideclass ofsoftwarepurchasersup to$6,200,000 invouchers

vouchers can be redeemedfor cash in connection withpurchases of qualifyinghardware or software; halfthe value of unclaimedbenefits distributed todisadvantaged schools

[information notavailable on website]

Microsoft Case Nature ofAllegations Governmental(Civil/Criminal),Direct Purchaseror Competitor Action(s)Type ofClass Amount ofSettlement Distribution M ethod Attorneys’ Fees


In re FloridaMicrosoft AntitrustLitig., 99-27340

(11 Jud. Cir.th

Miami-Dade

County, Fla.)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$202,000,000

in vouchers

vouchers can be redeemed

for cash in connection with

purchases of qualifying

hardware or software; half

the value of unclaimed

benefits distributed to

disadvantaged schools

Microsoft to pay fee

agreed upon or

otherwise awarded by

court; notice indicates

request not to exceed

$48 million

In re KansasMicrosoft AntitrustLitig., 99-CV-17089

(Dist. Ct. Johnson

County, Kan.)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$32,000,000 in

vouchers









agreed upon or



request not to exceed $8

million

In re MicrosoftCorporationMassachusettsConsumerProtection Litig.,00-2456 (Mass.

Super. Ct.

Middlesex)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$34,000,000 in

vouchers









agreed upon or




$9.75 million

Gordon v. MicrosoftCorp., No. MC 00-

5994; Uglem v.Microsoft Corp.,No. MC 03-4162

(Dist. Ct. Hennepin

County, Minn.)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$174,500,000

in vouchers









agreed upon or




$59.4 million



Arthur v. Microsoft

Corp., No. CI 01-126 (Dist. Ct.Dodge County,Neb.)Abuse of monopolypower and unlawfultie-in of internetbrowser software


up to$22,600,000 invouchersvouchers can be redeemedfor cash in connection withpurchases of qualifyinghardware or software; halfthe value of unclaimedbenefits distributed todisadvantaged schools

Notice says thatMicrosoft agreed to payfee not to exceed$2,712,000In re New Mexico

Indirect Purchasers

Microsoft

Corporation

Antitrust Litig., No.D0101CV20001697(1 Jud. Dist., N.M.)st




Microsoft to pay feeagreed upon orotherwise awarded bycourt; notice indicatesrequest not to exceed25% of Face Value ofSettlementMJM Investigations

Inc. v. Microsoft

Corp., Nos. 00 CVS4073 and 00 CVS1246 (N.C.Business Court,Raleigh, N.C.)



vouchers can be redeemedfor cash in connection withpurchases of qualifyinghardware or software; halfthe value of unclaimedbenefits distributed to N.C.Dept. of Public Institution

Microsoft to pay feeagreed upon orotherwise awarded bycourt; notice indicatesrequest not to exceed$22.25 millionHowe v. Microsoft

Corp., No. 00-C-00328 (Dist. Ct.,Grand ForksCounty, N.D.)Abuse of monopolypower and unlawfultie-in of internetbrowser software


up to$9,000,000 invouchersvouchers can be redeemedfor cash in connection withpurchases of qualifyinghardware or software; halfthe value of unclaimedbenefits distributed todisadvantaged schools

[information notavailable on website]



In re South DakotaMicrosoft AntitrustLitig., (Cir. Ct. 6th

Jud. Cir., Hughes

County, S.D.)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$9,330,000 in

vouchers








[information not

available on website]

Sherwood v.Microsoft Corp., 99

C 3562 (Cir. Court,

Davidson County,

Tenn.)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$64,000,000 in

vouchers







Tennessee Commissioner of

Education

Notice indicates award

of $8 million

Elkins v. MicrosoftCorp., No. 165-4-01

(Sup. Ct. Windham

County)

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$9,700,000 in

vouchers









agreed upon or




$3.5 million

West Virginia exrel. McCraw v.Microsoft Corp.,No. 01-C-197

Abuse of monopoly

power and unlawful

tie-in of internet

browser software

Civil action by

federal and state

authorities; direct

purchaser actions

state-wide

class of

software

purchasers

up to

$18,000,000 in

vouchers








[information not

available on website]



Capp v. MicrosoftCorp., No.00CV637, Spencev. Microsoft Corp. ,No. 00CV3042; andBettendorf v.Microsoft Corp.,No. 03CV563 (Cir.Ct. Milwaukee Cty.,Wisc.)


state-wideclass ofsoftwarepurchasersup to$223,896,000in vouchers


Approximately $14million to three differentgroups. See Bettendorfv. Microsoft Corp., No.2008AP3215, 2009 WL4984079 (Wis. App.Dec. 22, 2009).Total of Microsoft indirect purchaser settlements listed above: up to $2,130,520,765 in vouchers**There may be settlements in some other states not listed.


5. SORBATES

Sorbates Case Nature of Allegations Governmental

(Civil/Criminal),

Direct Purchaser

or Competitor

Action(s)


Settlement

Distribution

Method

Attorneys’

Fees

State of Illinois ex rel.Madigan v. DaicelChemical Industries Ltd.,No. 02CH19575 (Cir. Ct.

Cook County, Ill.)


conspiracy for sorbates,

an ingredient in foods,

beverages and other

household products

Federal criminal

charges; Direct

purchaser actions

state-wide class

of consumer

indirect

purchasers of

sorbates

$1,610,000 cy pres to

benefit physical

education

programs in

disadvantaged

public school

districts

$234,000 to

state attorney

general

Orlando’s Bakery v.Nutrinova NutritionSpecialties & FoodIngredients, GmbH , No. 99-

560-II, (Chancery Court,

Davidson County, Tenn.)




beverages and other

household products

Federal criminal

charges; Direct

purchaser actions

state-wide class

of indirect

purchasers of

sorbates

$1,450,000 claims process

for business

purchasers; cy

pres for benefit

of consumers

32%

Kelley Supply, Inc. v.Eastman Chemical Co., No.

99cv001528 (Cir. Ct., Dane

County, Wis.)




beverages and other

household products

Federal criminal

charges; Direct

purchaser actions

multistate-class of

indirect

purchasers of

sorbates

$8,866,750 claims process

for business

purchasers; cy

pres for benefit

of consumers

23.6%

Total of Indirect Purchaser Sorbates Settlements listed above: $11,926,750


6. MISCELLANEOUS

Miscellaneous Case Nature of Allegations Governmental

(Civil/Criminal),

Direct Purchaser

or Competitor

Action(s)


Settlement

Distribution

Method

Attorneys’

Fees

In re California IndirectPurchaser X-Ray FilmAntitrust Litig., No. 960886(Sup. Ct. Alameda County)[1998 WL 1031494]Defendants conspiredto raise, fix andstabilize the prices ofmedical x-ray film

Direct purchaseractions state-wide classof indirectpurchasers ofmedical x-rayfilm$3,750,000 Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess

30%

Strang v. Sumitomo Corp.,(Sup. Ct. San DiegoCounty)(gilardi.com/pdf/cps6noc.pdf)Defendants colluded tofix, stabilize andmaintain copper prices

CFTC enforcementaction multistate class ofpurchasers ofcopper productsmultiplesettlementsaggregating$83,350,000

Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocessNoticesindicated feerequests of33.33% of$77,350,000Premier Pork, Inc. v.Rhone-Poulenc, S.A., No.CV2000-3, 2006 WL1388464 (Scott CountyKan, Dist. Ct. Jan. 31,2006)

Defendants colluded tofix, stabilize andmaintain prices formethionineKansas indirectpurchasers ofmethionine

$1,675,000 Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess33.33% (ofcommon fundless expenses)

Elizabeth Blevins, et al. v.Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories,Inc., Case No. 324380 (Sup.Ct. San Francisco, 2007)(premarinsettlement.com)Defendant engaged inanticompetitiveconduct that blockedaccess to alternativedrug

Direct purchaserclass action;competitor actionConsumers andThird-PartyPayors ofprescription drugPremarinpurchased inCalifornia

$5,200,000 Directdistribution ofcash proceedsthrough claimsprocess25%

Total of settlements listed above: $93,975,000


SETTLEMENT TOTALSTotal of indirect purchaser settlements (including those with approval pending): Settlement Groups Cash Non-cash benefit Total (cash and non-cash)Federal Cases (includingapproval pending) $1,538,337,600 $3,000,000(product: prescriptiondrugs) $1,541,337,600Infant Formula Cases $68,120,000 $10,464,000(product: infantformula) $78,584,000Brand-Name Drug Cases $89,311,000 $150,000,000(product: prescriptiondrugs) $239,311,000Vitamins State Cases $267,582,150.00 $267,582,150.00Microsoft Cases $2,130,520,765(vouchers for hardwareand software) $2,130,520,765Sorbates Cases $11,926,750 $11,926,750Miscellaneous Cases $93,975,000 $93,975,000Total: $2,069,252,500 $2,293,984,765 $4,363,237,265

AAI Amicus Briefs Filed Since 2001 Page 1

Updated Nov. 29, 2010

#

Case Date

filed

Court Authors

on brief

Issues Result/

comments

Other

groups

51. Terry v. Tyson

Farms

11.23.10 Supreme

Court cert

pet.

David Balto Competitive

injury under

Packers &

Stockyards Act

Pending Numerous farm

groups

50. AT&T

Mobility v.

Concepcion

10.6.10 Supreme

Court

Rick Brunell Class action

waivers

Pending

49. Sullivan v.

DeBeers

Investments

9.23.10 Third

Circuit, pet

for rh’g

Josh Davis,

Eric

Cramer,

Dan

Gustafson

Settlement

class

certification

standards

Rh’g granted

48. Messner v.

NorthShore

University

Health System

8.9.10 Seventh

Circuit

Eric

Cramer,

Josh Davis,

Avidan

Stern

Class

certification

standards

Pending

47. New York

Regional

Interconnect v.

FERC

7.29.10 D.C.

Circuit

Rick Brunell FERC’s

obligation to

consider

competition

Pending

46. Shames v. Cal.

Travel &

Tourism

Comm’n

7.9.10 Ninth

Circuit

(pet. for

rehearing)

Rick Brunell

and Peter

Carstensen

State action

defense

Position

accepted;

decision

vacated

45. Arkansas

Carpenters

Health &

Welfare Fund

(Cipro)

5.20.10 Second

Circuit

(pet. for

rehearing)

Paul Slater Reverse

payments

Rh’g denied

44. American

Banana v. Del

Monte

3.16.10 Second

Circuit

Rick Brunell

and Ellen

Meriwether

Market

definition and

Daubert

Summary

judgment

aff’d on other

grounds

43. Princo Corp. v.

Int. Trade

Comm’n

1.22.10 Fed.

Circuit, on

rh’g

Jonathan

Rubin and

Rick Brunell

Patent pool

exclusivity

agreements

Position

rejected, 616

F.3d 1318

42. Stolt-Nielsen

v. Animalfeeds

10.27.09 Supreme

Court

Rick Brunell

and Dan

Gustafson

Whether silent

arbitration

clause

precludes class

action

Position

rejected, 130

S. Ct. 1758

(2010)

Am. Independent

Bus. Alliance

(AMIBA) & Nat.

Community

Pharms. Ass’n

(NCPA)

41. American

Needle v. NFL

9.25.09 Supreme

Court

Rick Brunell

and Steve

Ross

Whether single

entity defense

applies to NFL

or other joint

ventures

Position

accepted, 130

S. Ct. 2201

(2010)

CFA



#

Case Date

filed

Court Authors

on brief

Issues Result/

comments

Other

groups

40. PSKS v.

Leegin

8.14.09 5th Cir. Rick Brunell Whether

Leegin

requires proof

of relevant

market

Position

rejected, 615

F.3d 412 (5th

Cir. 2010)

39. Arkansas

Carpenters

Fund v. Bayer

AG (Cipro)

4.27.09 Supreme

Court cert.

(from Fed.

Circuit

decision)

Mark

Lemley

Reverse

payments

Cert. denied AAI did not

write brief;

joined

professors, PPF,

and AARP

38. In re DRAM

Antitrust Lit.

3.5.09 9th Cir. Rick Brunell Indirect

purchaser

standing in

component

case

Case settled

37. FTC v.

Rambus Inc.

12.29.08 Supreme

Court cert.

Richard

Wolfram,

David Balto

Standard of

causation in §2

case involving

abusive

standard-

setting

Cert. denied CFA, Public

Patent

Foundation

36. Pacific Bell.

Tel. v.

linkLine

10.21.08 Supreme

Court

Rick Brunell Viability of

price squeeze

theory

Position

rejected, 129

S.Ct. 1109

(2009)

35. Rambus v.

FTC

6.11.08 D.C. Cir.

(pet. for

rehearing)

David Balto Standard of

causation

under §2

Rh’g denied CFA, PPF

34. FTC v. Whole

Foods Market,

Inc.

1.22.08 D.C. Cir. Rick Brunell Preliminary

injunction

standard in

FTC merger

cases

Position

accepted, 548

F.3d 1028

(D.C. Cir.

2008)

33. Quanta

Computer, Inc.

v. LG

Electronics,

Inc.

11.13.07 Supreme

Court

Shubha

Ghosh

Patent

exhaustion

doctrine

Position

accepted, 553

U.S. 617

(2008)

32. FTC v. Whole

Foods Market,

Inc.

7.31.07 U.S.D.C.,

D.C.

David Balto Merger of

Whole Foods

and Wild Oats

FTC motion

for PI denied,

502 F. Supp.

2d 1

CFA, Org for

Competitive

Markets

31. Eichenseer v.

Tavern League

6.25.07 Wisconsin

Supreme

Court

Peter

Carstensen

Implied

immunity

under state law

Position

rejected, 748

NW2d 154

(2008)



#

Case Date

filed

Court Authors

on brief

Issues Result/

comments

Other

groups

30. In re DDAVP

Direct

Purchaser

Antitrust

Litigation

5.25.07 2d Cir. Doug

Richards

Purchaser

standing to

bring Walker

Process claim

Position

accepted, 585

F.3d 677 (2d

Cir. 2009)

CFA, AARP,

CU, Families

USA

29. Cascade

Health

Solutions v.

PeaceHealth

4.19.07 9th Cir. David Balto,

Andrew

Kepper,

Craig

Wildfang,

Tom Miller

Standard for

section 2

liability for

bundled

discounts

Position

rejected, 502

F.3d 895 (9th

Cir. 2007)

CFA, CU

28. Leegin

Creative

Leather

Products, Inc.

v. PSKS, Inc.

2.26.07 Supreme

Court

Rick Brunell Validity of per

se rule against

RPM

Position

rejected, 5-4.

551 U.S. 877

(2007)

27. Credit Suisse

Securities v.

Billing

2.26.07 Supreme

Court

Joe

Goldberg,

Dan

Gustafason,

Darren Bush

Implied

immunity

under

securities laws

Position

rejected, 551

U.S. 264

(2007)

26. Joblove v.

Barr Labs (In

re Tamoxifen)

2.15.07 Supreme

Court cert.

and 2d Cir.

Paul Slater Reverse

payments in

drug patent

settlements

Cert. denied

(also filed

mtn for

rehearing en

banc in 2d

Circuit)

25. Broadcom

Corp. v.

Qualcomm

Inc.

12.20.06 3rd Cir. Eric Cramer

and David

Balto

Deceptive

conduct in

standard

setting as

violation of §2

Position

accepted, 501

F.3d 297 (3d

Cir. 2007);

CFA

24. Sperry v.

Crompton

Corp.

11.27.06 NY Ct.

App.

(also filed

in App.

Div.)

Dan Hume

and Bob

Lande

Availability of

treble damages

in class actions

Position

rejected, 831

NYS 2d 760

(2007). Also

filed in Cox

v. Microsoft.

23. Bell Atlantic

Corp. v.

Twombly

10.13.06 Supreme

Court

Parker Folse 12(b)(6)

standard for

conspiracy

Position

rejected, 550

U.S. 544

(2007)

22. Weyerhaeuser

Co. v. Ross-

Simmons

Hardwood

Lumber Co.

10.12.06 Supreme

Court

Jonathan

Rubin, Jon

Cuneo, Bob

Lande

Standard for

predatory

overbidding

Position

rejected, 549

U.S. 312

(2007)



#

Case Date

filed

Court Authors

on brief

Issues Result/

comments

Other

groups

21. Lorix v.

Crompton

Corp.

10.6.06 Minnesota

Supreme

Court

Richard

Lockridge

Indirect

purchaser

standing

Position

accepted, 736

N.W. 2d 619

(Minn. 2007)

20. In re Rambus

Inc.

9.29.06 FTC Jonathan

Rubin

Remedy FTC Order

issued 2.5.07

19. In re American

Express

Merchants

Litigation

9.20.06 2d Cir. Dan

Gustafson

Enforceability

of arbitration

clause

Position

accepted, 554

F.3d 300 (2d

Cir. 2009).

Currently on

remand to 2d

Circuit in

light of GVR

issued by

Supreme

Court.

18. Texaco Inc. v.

Dagher

11.10.05 Supreme

Court

Steve Ross Standard for

analyzing price

agreement by

integrated joint

venture

Position

rejected, 547

U.S. 1 (2006)

17. J.B.D.L. Corp.

v. Wyeth-

Ayerst Labs,

Inc.

11.7.05 6th Cir. David Balto Loyalty

rebates and

bundled

discounts in

drug case

Position

rejected, 485

F.3d 880 (6th

Cir. 2007)

AARP, CFA,

Families USA,

Prescription

Access Lit.

Project, National

Ass’n of Chain

Drug Stores,

Medical Device

Mfgs. Ass’n

16. Illinois Tool

Works Inc. v.

Independent

Ink, Inc.

9.28.05 Supreme

Court

Jonathan

Rubin

Presumption of

market power

in patent tying

cases

Position

rejected, 547

U.S. 28

(2006)

Am. Library

Ass’n, Am.

Ass’n of

Research

Libraries, Special

Libraries Ass’n,

Certified Auto

Parts Ass’n,

CCIA, Auto

Parts Remfgs

Ass’n,

Production

Engine Remfgs

Ass’n, Service

Station Dealers



#

Case Date

filed

Court Authors

on brief

Issues Result/

comments

Other

groups

of America &

Allied Trades,

Tire Industry

Ass’n,

Valueclick

15. Monsanto Co.

v. Scruggs

5.5.05 Fed. Cir. Mark

Patterson

First sale

doctrine

Position

rejected, 459

F.3d 1328

(Fed. Cir.

2006)

14. Johnson v.

Microsoft

Corp.

7.19.04 Ohio

Supreme

Court

Norman

Hawker,

Mark

Tucker

Indirect

purchaser

standing

Position

rejected, 834

NE2d 791

(2005)

13. In re Rambus

Inc.

5.17.04 FTC Jonathan

Rubin

Liability for

standard

setting

12. Verizon

Comm., Inc. v.

Trinko

7.23.03 Supreme

Court

Jonathan

Rubin

Refusal to deal

under §2

Position

rejected, 540

U.S. 398

(2004)

11. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc. v.

Rodriguez

2.27.03 1st Cir. Kevin

O’Connor

Injunction

against state

merger

enforcement

Settled;

related

decision at

322 F.3d 747

10. Bunker’s

Glass Co. v.

Pilkington plc

1.22.03 Arizona

Supreme

Court

Warren

Grimes

Indirect

purchaser

standing

Position

followed, 75

P.3d 99

(2003)

9. Dee-K

Enterprises,

Inc. v.

Heveafil Sdn.

Bhd

12.5.02 Supreme

Court cert.

Warren

Grimes, Bob

Skitol, Doug

Rosenthal

Foreign

jurisdiction

Cert. denied

8. United States

v. Visa U.S.A.,

Inc.

7.9.02 2d Cir. Ian Ayres Credit card

networks’

exclusionary

rules

Position

followed, 344

F.3d 229 (2d

Cir. 2003)

Did not write

brief; filed w/ 26

consumer groups

7. Valley Drug

Co. v. Geneva

Pharms.

7.9.02 11th Cir. Paul Slater Reverse

payments in

drug patent

settlements

Position

rejected, 344

F.3d 1294

(11th Cir.

2003)



#

Case Date

filed

Court Authors

on brief

Issues Result/

comments

Other

groups

6. Major League

Baseball v.

Crist

3.29.02 11th Cir. Steve Ross Baseball

exemption

Position

rejected, 331

F.3d 1177

(11th Cir.

2003).

CFA

5. U.S. v.

Microsoft

3.11.02 U.S.D.C.

D. D.C.

Jon Cuneo Tunney Act

proceeding

Position

rejected

4. A.D. Bedell

Wholesale

Co., Inc. v.

Philip Morris

Inc.

11.21.01 Supreme

Court cert.

Steve

Anderson

Application of

Noerr

Pennington to

tobacco

settlement

Cert. denied

3. In re

Disposable

Contact Lens

Antitrust

Litigation

7.19.01 U.S.D.C.

M.D. Fla.

Bert Foer Clarification of

settlement

agreement

2. In re Cardizem

CD Antitrust

Litigation

5.31.01 6th Cir. Paul Slater Reverse

payments in

patent

settlements

Position

followed, 332

F.3d 896 (6th

Cir. 2003)

1. Loeb

Industries, Inc.

v. Sumitomo

Corp.

4.16.01 7th Cir. Warren

Grimes,

Larry

Sullivan,

Joe Bauer

Application of

Illinois Brick

to copper

conspiracy

Position

followed in

part, 306 F.3d

469 (7th Cir.

2002)

aai working paper no. 10-03 abstract: indirect … of the...abstract: indirect purchaser class...

Documents