In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL-150; 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,925 (C.D. Cal. 1992)
In 1973, The States of Florida and Connecticut sued several named petroleum companies in each individual state’s federal court. The States alleged that the companies conspired to raise or stabilize prices for refined oil products and they continually engaged in the mutual exchange of pricing and price-related information. Further, the States alleged that the Defendants conspired to create an artificial scarcity of crude and refined oil and that the oil companies conspired not to compete in bidding on plaintiffs annual bulk sale petroleum supply contracts. California, Arizona, Washington and Oregon also sued
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.
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.
In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, 2001-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) & 73,150
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief against the three major contact lens makers and the American Optometric Association. The States alleged that defendants conspired to cut mail order companies and pharmacies out of the market for replacement contact lenses.
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.
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.
New York et al. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., Roche Vitamin, Inc.; Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. LTD; Eisai Co, LTD; Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd; BASF Corporation (master case)
In various state court filings around the country, Plaintiff States alleged that Defendants conspired to set the prices of vitamins that go into various products. The exemplar case upon which all other settlements were ultimately based was filed in the District of Columbia in conjunction with various private class actions.
In Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Antitrust Litigation, 191 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); M.D.L. 1211
Plaintiff States alleged that Toys R Us entered into vertical and horizontal agreements with numerous toy manufacturers to limit the supply of certain popular toys to warehouse clubs.
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.
New York et al. v. Salton, Inc. No. 02-CV-7096 (S.D.N.Y, 2002), 265 F. Supp 2d 310 (2003)
States complaint against Salton, Inc. (Salton), alleged that the company conspired to set a floor price with retailers of its contact grill, the George Foreman (GF) Grill. In some cases, noncompliance with the floor price led to suspension of shipments of GF grills to retailers. Also, Plaintiff States alleged that Salton prohibited its retailers from selling competitive contact grills.
