Which came first: the chicken or the egg?  Most biologists state unequivocally that the egg came first. In IsoNova Technologies, LLC v David L. Rettig and Ovalnnovations, LLC, that age old question was not answered, but the infamous chicken egg was central in the dispute.

McClave + Associates (MC+A), led by Expert Economist Dr. Rob Kneuper, provided econometric analysis on behalf of Ovalnnovations, LLC, a producer of dried egg products. IsoNova,LLC originally sued Ovalnnovations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa and Ovalnnovations countersued IsoNova claiming IsoNova created and maintained a monopoly in their respective market.  Specifically, Ovalnnovations alleged IsoNova maintained a more than majority market share in both the purchase and sale of dried egg products for use in the pet food industry.

Both companies operate in the inedible egg industry. Some eggs are cracked or broken during processing and not suitable for human consumption. These eggs are either sent to waste treatment facilities or provided to another company to be converted to a usable product. Some inedible eggs are used as an ingredient in pet food for household pets. In this case, liquid inedible egg is converted into a dried egg product and sold to pet food manufacturers.

Dr. Kneuper and the MC+A team were hired in 2021 to evaluate OvaInnovation’s antitrust counterclaims in this case, which included that IsoNova was using various mechanisms, including long-term contracts with suppliers, in order to maintain its dominance in the markets for the upstream purchase and downstream sales of inedible eggs in the U.S.  According to the allegations, IsoNova’s anticompetitive practices harmed smaller competitors such as Ovalnnovations, leading to diminished sales and profits. In addition to offering an opinion regarding antitrust liability, Dr. Kneuper also estimated damages to OvaInnovations in the form of lost profits and diminished enterprise value, assuming a finding of antitrust liability.

After over two years of work, and multiple expert reports, the case was settled to the satisfaction of Ovalnnovations.

Isonova Technologies, LLC v. David L. Rettig and OvaInnovations, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00071

May 2022 Update: Four years of work on the monumental opioids case ended on May 4, 2022 as Walgreens settled in the middle of trial for $683 million, bringing the State of Florida’s total recovery to nearly three billion dollars. This was one of our teams’ most difficult cases, both from an analytical and emotional perspective. You can read more about our experience in the trial on Dr. Jim McClave’’s blog article.

For more than two decades, the opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc on our country, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, destroying lives, splitting families, and costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. Among the thousands of legal actions being fought against opioid manufacturers and distributors, the State of Florida is finally having its day in court with the trial of its claims originally brought in 2018 commencing the week of April 5. Through it all, Infotech Consulting has been part of a team of experts retained by the State to examine the economic impact of the opioid epidemic in Florida and ensure that the Defendants (in this case, 12 major manufacturers and distributors) do not profit from the opioid crisis. 

As trial begins against the sole remaining defendant, Walgreens, Infotech Consulting will be the first team to present damages estimates to a jury. Dr. Jim McClave, CEO and Expert Statistician/Econometrician, and Dr. Rob Kneuper, Expert Economist, are expected to testify as expert witnesses on behalf of the State of Florida. Infotech Consulting is proud to be part of a large and dedicated trial team, working to hold accountable those who contributed to the opioid crisis. 

According to its Amended Complaint against the opioid manufacturers and distributors, the State of Florida alleged, “Defendants cooperated to sell and ship ever-increasing quantities of opioids into Florida. To create newfound demand for opioids, Defendants used unfair and misleading marketing- including the use of front groups, paid “opinion leaders,” and Continuing Medical Education courses (“CMEs”) – to convince both doctors and patients that opioids could safely be prescribed for common ailments that cause chronic pain. To meet the artificially inflated demand, Defendants sold, shipped, and dispensed opioids in quantities that could not possibly have been medically justified and in the face of clear evidence that opioids were being diverted for illegitimate uses. Defendants’ plan succeeded, and they recorded multibillion-dollar profits as a result.” 

Infotech Consulting experts Dr. Jim McClave and Dr. Rob Kneuper were hired in this case to analyze two distinct economic impacts of the Opioid Epidemic: damages to the State of Florida and profits made by the defendants as a result of the opioid crisis. Dr. McClave’s analysis, which worked to quantify the historical damages to Florida as a result of the defendants’ alleged misconduct, covered a variety of costs inflated as a result of the opioid crisis, including healthcare costs, criminal justice costs, child welfare costs, drug treatment costs, and lost tax revenue. Dr. Kneuper analyzed Defendants’ profits resulting from their sale and distribution of opioids. The Infotech Consulting team spent the last several years preparing these detailed analyses.

The State of Florida has reached settlements with 11 of the 12 Defendants to date. Recently, Florida reached agreements totaling $870 million with defendants CVS, Allergan, and Teva. The State previously had secured $1.6 billion from other defendants as part of a previous nation-wide settlement.