Missouri v. American Cyanamid Co.; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4722,.1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,712 (W.D. MO. 1997)

The Plaintiff States alleged that between 1989 and 1995, American Cyanamid Company (American Cyanamid) entered into contracts for Crop Protection Chemicals (CPC), with its dealers in which they agreed formally and in writing to a rebate program that held floor prices at levels equal to Defendant’s wholesale prices for affected CPC.

Read More →

Ohio, et al, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.(D.D.C. 2002); see also In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (BMS) wrongfully maintained a monopoly on Taxol, a drug for which the Plaintiff States alleged Defendant fraudulently filed a patent. BMS’s alleged wrongful action delayed entry into the market by generic competitors of the drug, resulting in higher prices for Taxol. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlemen, 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.

Read More →

California, et al., v. Chevron Corporation and Texaco, Inc. No. 01-07746 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2001)

Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Chevron Corporation (Chevron) and Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in the markets for refining, wholesaling, and retailing of gasoline and other motor vehicles; aviation gasoline and jet fuel; and California crude oil.

Read More →

New York et al. v. Reebok International, Ltd; 1995-1 Trade Cas. 71,558 (CCH), 96 F.3d 44, 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Reebok International Ltd. (Reebok) and The Rockport
Company (Rockport) conspired with certain dealers to set the minimum retail prices at which retailers were permitted to sell Reebok and Rockport women?s athletic footwear to consumers.

Read More →

Florida, et al. v. Nine West Group, Inc. and John Doe, 1-500, 80 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nine West Group (Nine West) conspired with unnamed dealers to set the minimum resale price at
which retailers were permitted to sell women’s dress shoes to customers.

Read More →

New York et al. v. Federated Department Stores

Anticompetitive effects posed by proposed merger of two of the nation’s largest department store retailers

Read More →

Alaska v. Safeway, Inc., No. 3AN-99-4371 Civil. (Alaska Superior Court April 13, 1999) (1999 WL 1209785)

The State of Alaska investigated the proposed merger of two large supermarkets for potential antitrust violations. The investigation resulted in the execution of a consent decree that required the divestiture of seven stores in relevant markets to a viable competitor.

Read More →

Florida v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 91-40002, In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 (N.D. Fla, 1991); 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 70,241 (N.D. Fla. 1993) (Settlement Agreement)

Florida sought an injunction and monetary relief, alleging that Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Bristol-Myers) conspired to fix the prices and monopolize the industry for infant formula.

Read More →

Texas v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 91-13079 (D. Travis City Texas 1995)

State sought an injunction and monetary relief, alleging that Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Bristol-Myers), Mead Johnson, Ross Laboratories (Ross), and the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) conspired to fix the prices and monopolize the industry for infant formula.

Read More →

Pennsylvania v. Capital Health System Services and Polyclinic Health System, 1995-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,205 (M.D. Pa. 1995)

Pennsylvania sought to enjoin the merger between Defendants, Capital Health System Services and Polyclinic Health System, alleging that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the market for hospital services by eliminating an effective competitor.

Read More →