Utah v. Phillips Petroleum Co. and Conoco, Inc., No. 2 02 CV-0982 (D. Utah 2002)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Phillips Petroleum Co. (Phillips Petroleum) and Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) from entering into a merger agreement, arguing that the merger would substantially impair competition for refining bulk supply and sale of gasoline.
Texas v. Conoco, Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Company (D.C. TX, 2002); Missouri v. Conoco Inc., No. 02-4190-CV-W-NKC (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2,
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) and Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips Petroleum) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition for natural gas gathering and for natural gas liquids fractionation.
Oregon et al. v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 01-1830 K1 (D. OR. Dec. 18, 2001)
States sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar), arguing that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply and wholesale marketing of gasoline.
New Jersey v. Exxon Corp. No. 1:99CV03183 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 1999); Alaska v. Exxon Corp. No. A99-618-CV (D. Alaska, Nov. 30, 1999); Texas v. Exxon Corp. No. 3-99CV 2709-L (N.D. Texas, Dallas, Dec. 3, 1999); California v. Exxon
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between Exxon Corporation (Exxon) and Mobil Corporation (Mobil), alleging that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition would substantially lessen competition and/or tend to lessen competition in relevant markets in each of the States.
California v. BP Amoco/p.l.c., 3:00-cv-00420-SI (N.D. Cal, Apr. 13, 2000); In the Matter of the British Petroleum Company and Amoco Corp. File No. 981-0345 1998 WL 910216
Plaintiff States, jointly with the Federal Trade Commission, sought to enjoin the merger between British Petroleum Company (BP) and Amoco Corporation (Amoco). It was alleged that the proposed merger would effectively reduce competition or create a monopoly in the sale of gasoline.
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 1361 (D. Me. 2002) MDL-1391; No. 00-CIV-5853 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y Aug. 8, 2000) (complaint)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant CD distributors unlawfully conspired to implement stringent minimum advertised price (MAP) policies in violation of antitrust laws.
In re: Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.) (see also Ohio v. Bristol Myers Squibb
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) attempted to maintain an unlawful monopoly on buspirone hydrochloride, a medication used to treat generalized anxiety. In settling, BMS agreed to a stipulated injunction and to reimburse consumers and state and local public entities for overcharges. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlement, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation 99-MD-1278 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2003), 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants entered into an unlawful agreement attempting to delay or prevent the marketing of less expensive generic alternatives to Cardizem CD, a brand name drug used to prevent heart attacks. The Plaintiff States settled for $80 million, the bulk of which was to be used to reimburse purchasers including consumers, insurance companies and other third-party payers for overcharges paid for Cardizem CD between 1998 and 2003.
New York v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 671 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nintendo Corporation, Ltd. (Nintendo) engaged in a conspiracy with dealers to fix or maintain the resale price for which the Nintendo Entertainment System video console could be sold.
In Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Antitrust Litigation, 191 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); M.D.L. 1211
Plaintiff States alleged that Toys R Us entered into vertical and horizontal agreements with numerous toy manufacturers to limit the supply of certain popular toys to warehouse clubs.
