Massachusetts v. SSC Associates, L.P. and Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., No. 95-12377NG (D. Mass. Oct. 18, 1995) (Consent Decree).
Joint FTC/state review of acquisition by Stop & Shop Markets of Purity Supermarket chain. FTC and State entered into separate identical consent orders requring divesitutres.
Maine v. Rite-Aid Corp., 1995-2 Trade Cas. 71, 148 (Kennebec Super. Ct. Sept. 25, 1995)
Joint merger investigation with FTC into acquistion by Rite-Aid of Brooks Pharmacies in Maine. Settlement required divestiture of up to five pharmacies and prior notification of Attorney General if Rite-Aid acquired any additional pharmacies in specified communities in the next 10 years.
Connecticut v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation), MDL No. 1290 (D.D.C. June 15, 2000) 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002); No. 98 CV 3115 (D.D.C. 2000) – complaint
Plaintiff States alleged that Mylan Laboratories, Inc.(Mylan) and other drug companies entered into illegal agreements to monopolize the market for certain generic anti-anxiety drugs.
In the Matter of Ralph’s & Yucaipa Companies
Merger of two southern California supermarket chains, parties entered into consent decree to divest 27 stores.
California v. DaVita Inc., CV 05-7190 RSWL (C.D. Cal. 2005)
Plaintiff State of California sought to enjoin the proposed acquisition by DaVita, Inc. of the hemodialysis facilities owned by Gambro Healthcare, Inc. a subsidiary of Gambro AB. California alleged that the merger would substantially reduce competition for the provision of renal dialysis services. The parties entered into a consent decree and judgment which provided for the divestiture of 35 clinic divestitures, and one piece of real property, as well as the appointment of a Monitor to assure compliance with the order.
Connecticut v. Koninklijke Ahold NV, Ahold USA, Inc et al., No. 396CV01349 (D. Conn. 1996)
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Ahold’s acquisition of The Stop & Shop Companies Inc. (Stop & Shop), alleging that the merger would substantially lessen competition within the supermarket industry.
California, Oregon, Washington v. BP Amoco p.l.c. and Atlantic Richfield Company
Plaintiff States, along with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sought to enjoin the merger between BP Amoco p.l.c. (BP) and Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO), alleging that the merger would give BP monopoly-like control over Alaska North Slope crude oil production and sales to West Coast refineries.
California v. Shell Oil Co., No. CV-97-9356 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 1998)
California sought to enjoin Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) and Shell Oil Company (Shell) from entering a joint venture, arguing that such an agreement would substantially impair competition for gasoline and crude oil within the state.
Washington v. Texaco, Inc., No. C97-1980 (W.D. Wash. 1997)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) and Shell Oil Company (Shell) from entering into a joint venture, arguing that such an agreement would substantially impair competition for gasoline in Washington, Oregon, and the States in general.
New York v. Keds Corporation, 1994 WL 97201, 1994-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 70,549 (S.D.N.Y.1994)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Keds Corporation (Keds) conspired with its dealers to set minimum retail prices for which the dealers could sell their products.
