Major Antitrust Lawsuits & Settlements
The following legal actions and settlements are examples of the Attorney General's enforcement of state and federal antitrust laws.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (December 2008)
As part of the settlement of the BuSpar and Taxol antitrust litigations, the Attorney General along with a group of other state attorneys general obtained an injunction requiring Bristol-Myers Squibb (Bristol) to report on settlement agreements it enters into that result in generic drugs not being brought to market. Subsequently, the states determined that Bristol had failed to disclose material information concerning one such agreement involving the brand-name prescription drug Plavix. Following an investigation, Bristol agreed that it had violated the injunction and paid the states $1.1 million.
JBS Beef, SA (February 2009)
In March 2008, JBS Beef, the third largest beef processor in the United States, announced that it intended to purchase rival processors, National Beef Packing Co. and Smithfield Beef Group. An exhaustive investigation of the merger's competitive effects revealed that JBS was attempting to acquire market power that would allow it to pay ranchers less for cattle and at the same time charge more for the beef it produces. In October 2008, the Attorney General, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and several other state attorneys general, filed suit to block the National Beef merger. The Smithfield acquisition was allowed to proceed because it did not present the same competitive concerns raised by a JBS/National Beef merger. On February 23, 2009, in the face of opposition from the Attorney General and his co-plaintiffs, JBS and National Beef Packing Co. abandoned their proposed merger.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (December 2008)
In December 2008, insurance broker, Marsh and McClennan Companies, Inc. (Marsh), settled an investigation conducted by Attorney General Greg Abbott and eight other attorneys general concerning Marsh's anticompetitive conduct in the market for commercial insurance. The Attorney General's investigation revealed that the broker accepted undisclosed compensation from insurers in exchange for preferential treatment. The scheme lasted several years ending at some point in 2004 and resulted in higher premiums paid by Marsh's commercial insurance customers.
Marsh previously adopted significant reforms that increased transparency to its customers concerning how Marsh is compensated. Under Marsh's settlement with the multistate group, it must abide by stringent disclosure requirements that will allow customers to make informed decisions about their insurance purchases. Marsh also agreed to pay the multistate group $7,000,000, of which Texas will receive $1,100,000, as reimbursement for investigative costs and resolution of the Attorney General's claim that Marsh violated the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act.
