Connecticut v. Suiza Foods Corp., 3:01-cv-01178-AWT (D.Conn. 6/25/2001)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.
Vermont and New Hampshire v. Suiza Foods Corp., No. 2:01-CV-194 (D.Vt. 2002)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.
U.S. et al. v. EchoStar Communications, Corp., et al. No. 1:02CV02138 (D.D.C.)
Federal and State action to enjoin merger of two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) companies. The merging parties abandoned their merger agreement
Connecticut v. Ty, Inc., No. CV-97-0573484-S (Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1997)
State alleged resale price maintenance by manufacturer of “Beanie Babies” toys. Company paid fine, reinstated dealer.
Connecticut v. American Medical Response, Inc., No. CV-99-589962-S (CT Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1999)
Plaintiff state investigated ambulance service after mergers gave it significant market power in state. Settlement required divestiture of 30 licenses, 20 ambulances, and rights to several primary service areas or PSAs.
U.S. and Connecticut v. Oldcastle Northeast (D.Ct. 1996)
Acquistion of one asphalt producer by another. After joint investigation by state and Department of Justice, acquisition was approved with divestitures.
In the Matter of SNET
SNET, publisher of Yellow Pages, allegedly refused to provide discounts and other accommodations to customers using a Yellow Pages consultant, rather than dealing with SNET directly.
U.S. and Connecticut v. Healthcare Partners, Inc., No. 3:95CV01946 (D. Conn. 1995)
After join investigation,United States and Connecticut alleged that sole hosptial in Danbury Connecticut conspired with physicians to preclude entry of managed care plans into the market. Consent decree was entered.
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 American Disposal Services, Inc., Ct. Super. Ct. 1994
Commercial waste hauling bid-rigging conspiracy
