Ohio v. Village Voice Media, LLC, No. CV03492804, (Ct. Com. Pl., 2003); California v. Village Voice Media, LLC, No. BC 289225, (Calif. Super. Ct, 2003)
Plaintiff States sought civil forfeiture and injunctive relief in separate suits alleging that Village Voice Media, LLC (Village Voice) and NT Media, LLC (New Times) conspired to restrain competition in local alternative newsweekly markets through a market allocation agreement.
California v. Shell Oil Co., No. CV-97-9356 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 1998)
California sought to enjoin Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) and Shell Oil Company (Shell) from entering a joint venture, arguing that such an agreement would substantially impair competition for gasoline and crude oil within the state.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
