RICO Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Walker : Cosho Humphrey Law Firm : RICO Act, Federal and State Racketeering Litigation, Boise Idaho

A national class action was certified on March 19, 2008 in New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First DataBank, Inc., 2008 WL 723774 (D.Mass.) against First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that First DataBank and McKesson engaged in a racketeering enterprise (the “Scheme”) to fraudulently state the “average wholesale price” (“AWP”) for numerous prescription pharmaceuticals beginning in late 2001, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 and California state law. The Scheme allegedly jacked up the AWP by five percent for over 400 brand-name, self-administered drugs sold through retail pharmacies, including mail order (the “Marked Up Drugs”). This allegedly fraudulent price hike caused damages to consumers and 11,000 third party payors (“TPPs”) across the nation.

To recap the allegations, beginning in late 2001, First DataBank, a drug pricing publisher, and McKesson, a drug wholesaler, reached a secret agreement to raise the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (“WAC”) to AWP spread from 20% to 25% for the over four hundred Marked Up Drugs. McKesson communicated these new 25% WAC to AWP markups to First DataBank, which then published AWPs with the new markup. To conceal the Scheme, McKesson and First DataBank agreed to effectuate price changes only when some other WAC-based price announcement was made by a drug manufacturer. By 2002, McKesson estimated that 95% of all prescription drug manufacturers used the inflated 25% markup, and that, by 2004, 99% of all prescription drug manufacturers did so. The Scheme ended on March 15, 2005, when First DataBank disclosed that it had ceased to conduct surveys of the market to obtain AWP information, contradicting prior statements.

The Scheme allegedly resulted in higher profits for retail pharmacies that purchase drugs on the basis of WAC, but get reimbursed on the basis of AWP.  According to the Plaintiffs, McKesson implemented the Scheme in order to provide this greater AWP “spread” to important retail pharmacy clients like Rite Aid and Walmart as well as its own pharmacy related businesses.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are cases in which combining federal antitrust and RICO claims in a single suit can create a powerful litigation strategy. Such situations often arise in “associated in fact” enterprises consisting of several different business entities that have engaged, or are engaging, in a scheme that defrauds consumers and at the same time restrains trade and/or fixes prices.

Complaints asserting antitrust violations usually rely on the classic underlying antitrust statute, section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since its enactment almost a century ago, this statute has provided essentially as follows: “Every contract, combination . . . conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. . . .” Section 2 of the Sherman Act may also be implicated: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony . . . .”

Combinations violating the Sherman Act may also constitute an “associated in fact” enterprise, and if the combination uses the United States mail, or telephone and facsimile services, or email and/or the Internet to implement and carry out a program that defrauds consumers or other businesses, the perpetrators also commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively, which are predicate acts under the federal RICO Act.

The Sherman and RICO Acts provide for treble damages and an award of litigation costs and fees to the prevailing plaintiff. There are other similarities between the elements of the Sherman and RICO Acts that provide additional leverage to a plaintiff injured in his business or property by reason of the defendants’ violations of these two potent federal statutes. In addition, such cases usually involve pendent state law claims, including violations of state competition and racketeering acts that can also be tried in the federal court.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks