U.S. and Seven States v. Thomson Corp., No. 96-1415 (D.D.C. 1996).

The United States along with Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between the Thomson Corporation (Thomson) and West Publishing Company (West), arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition among law resource publishing companies.

Read More →

Oregon et al. v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 01-1830 K1 (D. OR. Dec. 18, 2001)

States sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar), arguing that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply and wholesale marketing of gasoline.

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: Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 938 F.2d 919, 1991-1 Trade Cases (CCH) & 69,460

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant reinsurers, brokers and trade organizations conspired to reduce the availability to public entities of commercial general liability insurance during the mid-1980s.

Read More →

In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL-150; 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,925 (C.D. Cal. 1992)

In 1973, The States of Florida and Connecticut sued several named petroleum companies in each individual state’s federal court. The States alleged that the companies conspired to raise or stabilize prices for refined oil products and they continually engaged in the mutual exchange of pricing and price-related information. Further, the States alleged that the Defendants conspired to create an artificial scarcity of crude and refined oil and that the oil companies conspired not to compete in bidding on plaintiffs annual bulk sale petroleum supply contracts. California, Arizona, Washington and Oregon also sued

Read More →

New Jersey v. Exxon Corp. No. 1:99CV03183 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 1999); Alaska v. Exxon Corp. No. A99-618-CV (D. Alaska, Nov. 30, 1999); Texas v. Exxon Corp. No. 3-99CV 2709-L (N.D. Texas, Dallas, Dec. 3, 1999); California v. Exxon

Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between Exxon Corporation (Exxon) and Mobil Corporation (Mobil), alleging that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition would substantially lessen competition and/or tend to lessen competition in relevant markets in each of the States.

Read More →

California v. BP Amoco/p.l.c., 3:00-cv-00420-SI (N.D. Cal, Apr. 13, 2000); In the Matter of the British Petroleum Company and Amoco Corp. File No. 981-0345 1998 WL 910216

Plaintiff States, jointly with the Federal Trade Commission, sought to enjoin the merger between British Petroleum Company (BP) and Amoco Corporation (Amoco). It was alleged that the proposed merger would effectively reduce competition or create a monopoly in the sale of gasoline.

Read More →

In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, 2001-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) & 73,150

Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief against the three major contact lens makers and the American Optometric Association. The States alleged that defendants conspired to cut mail order companies and pharmacies out of the market for replacement contact lenses.

Read More →

California v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. S.F. No. 24699 (Cal. 1996)

The State of California sought damages, administrative costs and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi) conspired to fix the price of its jeans, thus resulting in overcharges to consumers during the 1970’s

Read More →