Vermont and New Hampshire v. Suiza Foods Corp., No. 2:01-CV-194 (D.Vt. 2002)

Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.

Read More →

Connecticut v. Suiza Foods Corp., 3:01-cv-01178-AWT (D.Conn. 6/25/2001)

Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.

Read More →

Massachusetts v. Suiza Foods Corp., No. 01 CV 11097 DPW (D. Mass. July 6, 2001)

Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Suiza Food Corporation (Suiza) and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Stop & Shop) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in New England for the processing and sale of fluid milk.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation 99-MD-1278 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2003), 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants entered into an unlawful agreement attempting to delay or prevent the marketing of less expensive generic alternatives to Cardizem CD, a brand name drug used to prevent heart attacks. The Plaintiff States settled for $80 million, the bulk of which was to be used to reimburse purchasers including consumers, insurance companies and other third-party payers for overcharges paid for Cardizem CD between 1998 and 2003.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

Missouri v. American Cyanamid Co.; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4722,.1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,712 (W.D. MO. 1997)

The Plaintiff States alleged that between 1989 and 1995, American Cyanamid Company (American Cyanamid) entered into contracts for Crop Protection Chemicals (CPC), with its dealers in which they agreed formally and in writing to a rebate program that held floor prices at levels equal to Defendant’s wholesale prices for affected CPC.

Read More →