Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Settlement
US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, MDL 2406, 2:13 cv-20000-RDP
Overview
Plaintiffs claim that Settling Defendants violated antitrust laws by entering into an agreement not to compete with each other in selling health insurance and administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products in the United States and Puerto Rico, as well as agreeing to other means of limiting competition in the market for health insurance and administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products.
The settlement includes net proceeds (after covering legal and administrative fees) of approximately $1.78 billion for eligible fully insured plans, and approximately $120 million for self-funded groups.
Eligible Individuals, Insured Groups and Self-Funded Groups will also benefit from changes by the Settling Defendants to make their practices more competitive.
Class
Individuals, Insured Groups (including both employers and other groups), and Self-Funded Accounts (including both employers and other groups), that purchased, were covered by, or were enrolled in a Blue Branded Commercial Health Benefit Product sold, underwritten, insured, administered or issued by a Settling Individual Blue Cross Blue Shield Member Plan during one of the two relevant Class Periods. Government accounts, dependents, beneficiaries (including minors) and non-employees are not included in the settlement class.
Settlement Period
February 7, 2008 through October 16, 2020: Fully Insured Groups
September 1, 2015 through October 16, 2020: Self-Funded Accounts
Defendants
- Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA)
- Settling Individual Blue Cross Blue Shield Member Plans
Settlements: $2.67 Billion ($1.78 Billion Fully-Insured and $120 Million Self-Funded)
Filing Deadline: November 5, 2021
SRG is not affiliated with the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party service that can be hired to file and track claims. We specialize in helping companies file claims to obtain their share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim. No-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during any claims-filing period. Official documents and information on the case can be found on the Court-approved case website www.bcbssettlement.com. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax or other professional advice.
Dental Supplies Antitrust Settlement
US District Court, Eastern District of NY, Case 1:16-cv-00696
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that the country’s largest dental supply distributors colluded to suppress price competition so they could charge artificially inflated prices for dental supplies and equipment. The dental supply companies Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Companies and Benco Dental Supply Company, were accused of colluding to fix prices on crowns, numbing agents, X-ray accessories and other products, and also colluding to boycott supporters of a lower-cost rival.
Dentists typically buy supplies through centralized clearinghouses, as opposed to purchasing goods directly from manufacturers. Collectively, these companies reportedly control over 85 percent of all distributor sales of dental products and services nationwide, according to court filings.
Class
All persons or entities that purchased Dental Products directly from Schein, Patterson or Benco between August 31, 2008 and March 31, 2016. Excluded from the Class are Schein, Patterson and Benco (including their subsidiaries, affiliates and employees), and all federal or state government entities.
Once the settlement is final, customers that are included in the defendants’ databases will be notified of next steps. Organizations such as the ADA will be contacted to provide information, and a settlement website will be set up to explain the terms and process for making a claim.
Defendants
- Henry Schein, Inc.
- Patterson Companies
- Benco Dental Supply Company
Pending Settlement: $80,000,000
Filing Deadline: September 19, 2019
Hypodermic Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement
2:05-md-1730 US District Court, District of New Jersey
Overview
Plaintiffs in the Class Action allege that Becton Dickinson and Company (“BD”) violated federal antitrust laws with respect to the sale of BD Hypodermic Products. The Lawsuit claims that BD engaged in several forms of anticompetitive practices, including: (1) imposing market share purchase requirements on hospitals or other healthcare entities, (2) bundling its goods for exclusionary purposes, (3) conspiring with Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) for the purpose of imposing exclusionary contracts, and (4) conspiring with other manufacturers to impose rebate penalties on purchasers relating to a bundle of products. The Lawsuit claims that by engaging in this conduct, Defendant was able to improperly maintain a monopoly in the markets in which BD Hypodermic Products are sold, causing direct purchasers of BD Hypodermic Products to pay artificially inflated prices for BD Hypodermic Products.
Class
All persons and entities (and assignees of claims from such persons and entities) who (1) purchased BD Hypodermic Products in the United States from BD at any time during the period of March 23, 2001 through April 27, 2009 (the “Class Period”) and (2) were invoiced by BD for said purchases. The Direct Purchaser Class excludes BD, BD’s parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, and United States Government Entities and those persons or entities who are permitted by the Court to opt out of the Direct Purchaser Class.
“BD Hypodermic Products” are products sold by BD in the following device categories:
- safety and conventional hypodermic needles and syringes;
- safety and conventional blood collection devices, including needles, blood collection tubes, and tube holders;
- safety and conventional IV catheters, including winged IV catheters; and
- safety and conventional insulin delivery devices.
Defendant
Becton Dickinson and Company
Settlement
The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement between BD and the Direct Purchaser Class. The Settlement will provide for payment of $45 million for allocation to the members of the Direct Purchaser Class.
Filing Deadline: Contact SRG
Stericycle & Steri-Safe Settlement
1:13-md-2455 US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that Stericycle, a large provider of medical waste disposal services, did not honor the fixed prices it promised to charge its customers. Instead, Stericycle systematically and regularly raised its prices, without any justification and without notifying its customers. Plaintiffs allege Stericycle misled customers about its pricing and practices, and induced them to become or remain customers by falsely representing that its rates were fixed. Stericycle failed to disclose its practice of increasing prices, failed to notify customers that prices had changed, and then were not truthful about the reasons for price increases when clients challenged them.
Class
All persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through October 26, 2017, resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as a “Small Quantity” or “SQ” customer, and were charged and paid more than their Contractually Agreed Price for Stericycle’s medical waste disposal goods and services. Excluded from the class are governmental entities whose claims were asserted and resolved in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. and any entities that have previously settled similar claims with Stericycle and released those claims.
Settling Defendant: Stericycle, Inc.
Settlements: $295,000,000
Filing Deadline: Contact SRG
