United States v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:99-CR-184-R (May 20, 1999)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Roche) (defendant) and other vitamin manufacturers engaged in a sophisticated conspiracy to fix worldwide prices and sales volumes of vitamins. Each company involved in the conspiracy was allocated a percentage of the relevant global vitamin market. Within the United States, Roche and another co-conspirator met to divide customers between themselves. They reviewed bid requests and together determined the amount of each company’s bid. Roche played a pivotal role in the conspiracy, often initiating changes to its scope. Roche and the co-conspirator destroyed all documents after each meeting. In all, Roche sold over $3.2 billion in vitamins under the conspiracy. The United States charged Roche with violating § 1 of the Sherman Act. Dr. Kuno Sommer was the Roche executive primarily responsible for the company’s participation in the vitamin conspiracy. When the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) interviewed Sommer about the conspiracy, he lied to investigators. Eventually, Roche admitted to the collusion and began cooperating with the DOJ. Prior to this action, Roche reached a plea agreement with the DOJ in connection with an alleged violation of the Sherman Act related to Roche’s production and sale of citric acid.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.