Connecticut, et al. v. BL Makepeace, Inc., et al., No. 79-642 (D.Conn.)
Retail vendors of architectural, engineering and drafting supplies, equipment and blueprint services settled Attorney General?s claims of price fixing and unlawful market allocation via entry of a consent decree which prohibited such conduct and payment of a monetary forfeiture.
Massachusetts v. First Group, PLC
Eleven states alleged that the merger would substantially lessen competition in numerous markets for the procurement of School Bus Services within the Plaintiff States. Settlement required divestitures of routes and depots, provision o fmaintenance services, no non-compete agreements, notice to the states of future acquisitions, and no coercion to include certain bid specifications plus $1.1 million in attorneys fees.
In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (Augmentin)
States alleged that GlaxoSmithKline fraudulently obtained patent protection for Augmentin and then delayed generic entry through sham patent litigation. Through this conduct, GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully maintained its monopoly over Augmentin. A $3.5 million multistate settlement for state proprietary claims was entered into by the participating states and GlaxoSmithKline.
In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
States sued manufacturer of antidepressant Relafen, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled the state proprietary claims for $10 million.
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.
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.
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.
Connecticut v. Koninklijke Ahold NV, Ahold USA, Inc et al., No. 396CV01349 (D. Conn. 1996)
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Ahold’s acquisition of The Stop & Shop Companies Inc. (Stop & Shop), alleging that the merger would substantially lessen competition within the supermarket industry.
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.
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.
