Delaware v. Emulsion Products Company., Inc., No. 7198, (Del. Ch. filed Jun. 1, 1983)
Delaware sought civil penalties, equitable relief, damages, fees and costs, alleging Defendant, Emulsion Products Company, Inc., participated in conspiracies to rig bids in connection with the supply of liquid asphalt in the State of Delaware.
Delaware v. Better Roads Corp., No. 7199, (Del. Ch. filed Jun. 1, 1983)
Delaware sought civil penalties, equitable relief, damages, fees and costs, alleging Defendant, Better Roads Corp., participated in conspiracies to rig bids in connection with the supply of liquid asphalt in the State of Delaware.
Delaware v. Camelot Mobile Home Park, Inc., No. 6425 (Del. Ch. filed Apr. 10, 1981).
Delaware sought civil penalties, injunctive relief, damages, fees and costs, alleging Defendant, Camelot Mobile Home Park, Inc. engaged in an illegal tying arrangement by conditioning the lease of a lot upon the purchase of a new mobile home.
Delaware v. Bayshore, Inc., No. 6424 (Del. Ch. filed Apr. 10, 1981).
Delaware sought civil penalties, injunctive relief, damages, fees and costs, alleging Defendant, Bayshore, Inc. engaged in an illegal tying arrangement by conditioning the lease of a lot upon the purchase of a new mobile home.
Delaware v. The Asphalt Service Company, No. 7180, (Del. Ch. filed May 5, 1983)
Delaware sought civil penalties, equitable relief, damages, fees and costs, alleging Defendant, the Asphalt Service Company, participated in conspiracies to rig bids in connection with the supply of liquid asphalt in the State of Delaware.
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, 560 F. Supp. 760 (D. Md. 1983); 605 F. Supp 440 (D. Md 1984)
Plaintiff States sought damages, alleging defendant distributors and dealers conspired to set the prices for which Toyota automobiles were sold among various dealerships.
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.
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.
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.
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.
