Ohio, et al, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.(D.D.C. 2002); see also In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (BMS) wrongfully maintained a monopoly on Taxol, a drug for which the Plaintiff States alleged Defendant fraudulently filed a patent. BMS’s alleged wrongful action delayed entry into the market by generic competitors of the drug, resulting in higher prices for Taxol. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlemen, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.
Florida, et al. v. Nine West Group, Inc. and John Doe, 1-500, 80 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nine West Group (Nine West) conspired with unnamed dealers to set the minimum resale price at
which retailers were permitted to sell women’s dress shoes to customers.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC et al., No. 04-C-254M (Cir. Ct. Marshall Cty. 2004)
Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit and consent order to settle the lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, and SmithKline Beechham Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drugs, Paxil, Augmentin, and Relafen. Paxil is commonly prescribed for anxiety and depression, Augmentin is an antibiotic, and Relafen is a non-steroidal pain reliever. The State alleged that the defendants had unlawfully attempted to extend their patent protection for the three prescription drugs. After an investigation, the State reached an agreement with the defendants to settle the manner. Under the terms of the settlement, the State received $500,000.00.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Mid-American Waste Systems of West Virginia, Inc., No. 97-C-255 (Cir. Ct. Wood Cty. 1997)
Owner of only landfillin area sought to monopolize market by use of evergreen contracts
Archer v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Roche Vitamins Inc., Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., LTD.; Eisai Co., Ltd; Takeda Chemical Industries, LTD., and Basf Corporation
State intervened in private class action suit following guilty pleas by vitamin manufacturers.
West Virginia ex rel. Tompkins v. Northwestern Disposal Co. et al., No. 90-C-130 (Cir. Ct. Wood Cty. 1990).
Case alleged monopolization by owner of only landfill within geographic area.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Microsoft Corp., No. 01-C-197 (Cir. Ct. Boone Cty. 2004)
The State filed a lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation seeking damages caused to the State and its consumers because of Microsoft’s unlawful monopolization in the computer operating system market. In June of 2003, the State reached a settlement with Microsoft Corporation along with a separate class of private plaintiffs.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Meadow Gold Dairies and Valley Rich Dairy, No. 93-0915-R (W.D. Va. 1995)
Meadow Gold and Valley Rich were accused of bid-rigging, market allocation and price fixing fluid milk sold to public schools in Southeastern West Virginia and Virginia. Valley Rich settled the case and Meadow Gold was dismissed. The case against Meadow Gold was refiled in West Virginia State Court. This action followed a guilty plea by Borden, Inc. to federal antitrust charges on rigging bids for school milk programs.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., No. 95-C-65 (Cir. Ct. Greenbrier Cty. 1995)
Meadow Gold Dairies conspired with other fluid milk distributors to rig bids and divide the market for supplying milk to public school districts in Southeastern West Virginia
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Wampler Foods, Inc., No. 99-C-10 (Cir. Ct. Hardy Cty. 1999)
The State brought an action claiming Wampler was using its monopsonistic power to control the prices paid to farmers raising chickens for it. Farmers had no other buyer for the chickens they raised other than Wampler. The Court dismissed the action finding that Wampler had not engaged in any exclusionary conduct.
