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…
Settlement Agreement Between States and Five Guys Franchisor LLC
Fourteen states investigated “no-poach†agreements (clauses, often contained in franchise agreements, which prevent workers from switching between employers of the same franchise in order to obtain a better job with a higher salary or improved working conditions). The states settled with four national fast food franchisors, Dunkin’, Arby’s, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, who agreed to cease using “no-poach†agreements that restrict the rights of fast food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Under the terms of the settlements, the franchisors will stop including no-poach provisions in any of their franchise agreements and stop enforcing any franchise agreements already in place. The franchisors have also agreed to amend existing franchise agreements to remove no-poach provisions and to ask their franchisees to post notices in all locations to inform employees of the settlement. Finally, the franchisors will notify the attorneys general if one of their franchisees tries to restrict any employee from moving to another location under an existing no-poach provision. Since the investigation began, Wendy’s provided confirmation that it never used no-poach provisions in their contracts with franchisees. Investigations into Burger King, Popeyes, and Panera continue.
