Maryland v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 2:06-cv-01298-JP (E.D.Pa Mar. 27, 2006)
States sued manufacturer of antitdepressant Paxil, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled for $14 million.
Nixon et al., v. Cargill, Inc., No. 4:97-cv-0687 (E.D.Mo.)April 1997)
Northern Mississippi River and Ohio River States sought to minimize the impact of the merger of Cargill and Akzo by divestiture of bulk deicing salt supply agreement.
Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., No. 02CH19575 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty IL)
Plaintiff State sued five sorbates manufacturers, alleging price fixing. Case settled with cy pres distribution of $1.6 million to nutrition and fitness programs at financially disadvantaged schools.
Missouri, et al vs. Arch Coal, Inc and New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC and Triton Coal Company, LLC, US District Court, District of Columbia – No. 1:04CV00535
Merger review of two of the most dominant coal producers in the Permian Basin.
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
U.S. Illinois, and Missouri v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
States of Missouri and Illinois joined in United States Department of Justice action to enjoin acquisition or to remedy anticompetitive effects from proposed acquisition by waste hauler.
In the Matter of Schnucks Markets, Inc.
States reached settlement agreement with retail seller of food and grocery store products requiring specified divestitures in concentrated markets; subsequent settlement agreement reached resolving allegation of violation of divestiture agreement
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.
New York v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000)
U.S. Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States alleged that the Defendant, Microsoft Corporation violated State and Federal law by maintaining a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems and by illegally tying its Windows operating system to its Internet Explorer browser.
U.S. v. First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc., 1:03CV02169 (D.D.C. filed 10/23/03)
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between First Data Corporation (First Data) and Concord EFS, Inc. (Concord), alleging that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the financial services market.
