Connecticut v. Journeymen Barbers Hairdressers and Cosmetologists International
Action claiming illegality of defendants’ pricing practices via use of a minimum fee schedule.
Connecticut v. The Pontiac Dealers Advertising Association
Association of automobile dealers agreed to refrain from fixing, maintaining or stabilizing prices at which automobiles will be advertised.
Connecticut v. Viking Sewing Machine Co., Inc., No. CV-79-0240205 (Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford 1979)
Manufacturer of sewing machines was prohibited by a consent decree from agreeing with dealers on resale prices or advertised resale prices in Connecticut for a three-year period.
Massachusetts v. First Group, PLC
Eleven states alleged that the merger would substantially lessen competition in numerous markets for the procurement of School Bus Services within the Plaintiff States. Settlement required divestitures of routes and depots, provision o fmaintenance services, no non-compete agreements, notice to the states of future acquisitions, and no coercion to include certain bid specifications plus $1.1 million in attorneys fees.
Connecticut v. HealthDrive Corporation
Provider of allied healthcare professional services (dental, optometric, audiological, podiatric) to long-term care facilities and their residents settled Attorney General’s claims of unlawful tying (of podiatric services to dental services) via entry of an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, which eliminated the tying practice.
In re Healthcare Research and Development Institute LLC
Investigation led by CT AG into certain anticompetitive behavior carried out by HRDI in the healthcare service and supply industry and the use of undue and improper influence in the healthcare purchasing process. HRDI agreed to dissolve, but it is permitted to reorganize with only health care executives as members. HRDI also must pay Connecticut $150,000.
New York v. Tele-Communications Inc., 1993 WL 527984 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1993), 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70, 404
Defendant cable system operators, subsidiaries and a satellite cable supplier formed a monopoly in restraint of trade in the delivery of multichannel subscription television programming.
In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (Augmentin)
States alleged that GlaxoSmithKline fraudulently obtained patent protection for Augmentin and then delayed generic entry through sham patent litigation. Through this conduct, GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully maintained its monopoly over Augmentin. A $3.5 million multistate settlement for state proprietary claims was entered into by the participating states and GlaxoSmithKline.
In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
States sued manufacturer of antidepressant Relafen, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled the state proprietary claims for $10 million.
In the Matter of ACE Ltd. and ACE Group Holdings, Inc.
ACE Ltd., an insurance broker, allegedly participated in bid-rigging schemes with Marsh McLennan and other borkers in which they provided sham bids tocustomers. ACE agreed to pay $80 milion in restitution and penalties, and to adopt a series of significant reforms of its business practices
