Maryland v. Bong Soo Ha, Civ. No. 148715 (Cir. Ct. For Montgomery Co. 1996)
Defendants met at various Korean restaurants and set the prices they would charge retailers for Korean language videos.
Maryland Coastal Insulation, Inc., C.I. 290235009 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1990)
Defendant agreed with others to submit rigged bids on asbestos abatement jobs.
Maryland v. Hayes, C.I. 19012019 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1990).
Defendant agreed with others to submit rigged bids on asbestos abatement jobs.
Maryland v. ARC Asbestos Removal Co., Coastal Insulation, Inc., Edward J. Hayes & Nicholas D. Thrappas, Civ. No. 90187046/CL 116120 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1990).
Civil Consent Decree following criminal bid-rigging guilty plea.
Maryland v. Applied Construction, Inc., C.I. No. 29010101 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1990).
Bid-rigging of six sealed bids for asbestos removal services contracts totaling over $140,000.00.
Maryland v. Jensema, et al., No. 3-C-96-1205 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore Co. 1996).
Impartial Hearing Officers, through their trade association and individually, agreed to set fees for presiding over special education appeal hearings.
Maryland v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., et al. No. 24-C-99-004904 (Cir. Ct. for the City of Baltimore 1999).
Related to Florida’s Sanitary Paper case – price-fixing among manufacturers of sanitary paper products (tissue, napkins, etc. used in commercial or institutional context).
Maryland and Maryland Stadium Authority v. National Football League, et al., Civ. No. 6 96-155 (D. Md. 1996).
Case sought to enjoin NFL from preventing Art Modell from moving the Cleveland Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore.
Maryland v. Alger Oil Co. and Tri-Gas & Oil Co., No. CV-10878 (Cir. Ct. for Queen Anne’s Co. 2005)
Alger agreed to purchase contracts of Tri-Gas customers north of Centreville, MD. Tri-Gas agreed to purchase contracts of Alger customers south of Centreville, MD.
New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al., No. 1:19-cv-5434 (S.D.N.Y.)
States challenged merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the third and fourth-largest mobile telecommunications providers in the U.S., alleging that shrinking the national wireless carrier pool down from four to three providers would decrease competition and create higher prices for consumers. The US Department of Justice and seven states entered into a settlement with the parties…
