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.

Read More →

Texas v. Zeneca, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13153 (N.D. Tex. 1997)

States sought an injunction and monetary damages from Zeneca, Inc. (Zeneca), alleging that the company conspired with distributors of its crop protection chemicals to maintain the resale price of the chemicals.

Read More →

In re Clozapine Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 874 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

Plaintiff States sought monetary damages and injunctive relief against Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Sandoz), alleging the company unlawfully required those who purchased its drug, Clozapine, to also purchase distribution and patient monitoring services from Sandoz.

Read More →

U.S. v. USA Waste Services, 1999 U.S. District Lexis 17577 (N.D. OH, 1999)

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger agreement between USA Waste Services, Inc. (USA Waste) and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), arguing that such a merger would substantially lessen the competition in the waste disposal and commercial waste hauling business.

Read More →

In Re: Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 938 F.2d 919, 1991-1 Trade Cases (CCH) & 69,460

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant reinsurers, brokers and trade organizations conspired to reduce the availability to public entities of commercial general liability insurance during the mid-1980s.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

Colorado, et al. v. Airline Tariff Pub. Co.; No. 1:90-CV-2485-MHS and MDL No. 861 (N.D. Georgia) (October 1994)

Settlement providing for discounted ticket prices for state and local government agency air travel reached between Plaintiff States and certain airlines over price-fixing scheme.

Read More →

Maryland et al v. Mitsubishi Electronics America; 1992-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶69,743 (D. Md. 1992)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (MELA) conspired with its dealers to set or maintain the resale price of its electronics equipment. In the settlement with Plaintiff States, MELA was enjoined from engaging in the alleged conduct and agreed to pay $6 million dollars for administrative costs and to reimburse qualified buyers.

Read More →

New York et al. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (S.D.N.Y. 1989)

Plaintiff States sued for damages and injunctive relief on their own behalf and as parens patriae. The complaint alleged that Defendant conspired to fix or maintain the resale price for which dealers were able to sell Matsushita?s products. The case was settled. Plaintiff States were awarded damages and injunctive relief.

Read More →