Utah v. Black Sheep Wool Company(settlement agreement)
State investigated allegations that Cascade Yarns, Inc. was restricting trade by refusing to sell to a retailer accused by competing retailers of undercutting market prices.
Utah v. Cascade Yarns, Inc. (Civ. No. 050905940 (3d Dist. Utah 2005)
State investigated Cascade Yarns, Inc. in relation to allegations that Cascade was restricting trade by refusing to sell to a retailer accused by competing retailers of undercutting market prices.
Utah v. Hitachi Sales Corp. of America, No. 880026602 (1st Dist. Cr. Cache Cty Utah 1988)
State alleged Hitachi and its distributors had coerced certain dealers into raising their prices by means of a concerted refusal to deal.
Utah v. Evans Broadcasting, 963 P.2d 177 (Utah 1998); 1998-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72, 192, No. 980800622 (8th Jud. Dist. Ct., Uintah Cty. 1998)
State alleged that radio stations owned by family members were conspiring to monopolize radio advertising in the Uintah Basin of Utah.
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.
Utah v. University of Utah, Civ No. 940901730M (Utah D. Ct., 3rd Dist., Salt Lake Cnty. filed 3/16/94).
State settled allegations against state university, which had been involved in a conspiracy by eight Utah hospitals to fix wages of registered nurses and fix physician prices.
In re Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 410 F. Supp. 669, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9407 (D. Minn. 1974)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant companies conspired to monopolize and restrain the trade for the manufacture, sale and distribution of broad spectrum antibiotics (BSA).
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.
Texas v. Conoco, Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Company (D.C. TX, 2002); Missouri v. Conoco Inc., No. 02-4190-CV-W-NKC (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2,
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) and Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips Petroleum) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition for natural gas gathering and for natural gas liquids fractionation.
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.
