Connecticut v. Nutmeg Test Boring, No. CV-84-298394 (Conn. Super Ct. Hartford Dist.1984)
Trade association and its members were enjoined from fixing the prices for industrial drilling and test-boring services, and from communicating certain pricing information with each other.
Connecticut v. Amity Package, CV-84-228912 (Conn. Super Ct., New Haven Dist. 1984)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Serlin Group
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Super Saver Liquor Outlets, No. CV-84-228911 (Conn. Super Ct., New Haven Dist.)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Danilow Pastry Co., Inc., No. CV 83-028-7470 (Conn. Super Ct., Hartford Dist. 1983)
Following USDOJ criminal investigation, wholesale bakeries were enjoined from fixing prices and exchanging prices of various baked goods. Conspiracy impacted Connecticut and New York market area.
Connecticut v. Auto-Time, No. CV-83-290265 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist.1983)
The exclusive New England distributor of Seiko branded watches was enjoined from engaging in resale price maintenance, following complaints of dealer terminations
Connecticut v. Mobilia, Inc. No. CV-81-0065134 (Conn. Super. Ct. New London Dist.)
Owner of mobile home park engaged in unlawful tying arrangement by conditioning the lease of rental site on the lessee’s agreement to purchase a mobile home from the park owner.
In the Matter of USI Consulting Group
State alleged kickback scheme by pension plan broker, who was paid by insurers for access to potential business. Broker agreed to injunctive relief changing its practices and $470,000.
In the Matter of Independent Connecticut Petroleum Ass’n Inc.
State alleged that heating oil dealers, throught their trade association, conspired to boycott the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program, which helps pay for heating oil for low-income consumers. The boycott was intended to raise the reimbursement rate for heating oil provided by participating dealers. According to the state, the trade association urged the dealersnot to participate in the program. The settlement prohibited future agreements seeking to increase the reimbursement rates, required the association to establish an anittrust compliance program and notify the AG of its compliance with the settlement for 10 years.
Connecticut v. Connecticut Chiropractic Ass’n et al. (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford March 25, 2008)
State alleged that members of both trade groups, spurred on by their leadership,
illegally agreed to boycott Anthem Health Plans, Inc.’s intention to form a new network for chiropractic services that would be administered by American Specialty Health Networks, Inc. (ASH). Hirtle (longtime counsel to CCA) facilitated the conspiracy by aggressively urging chiropractors to opt out
of the proposed network. Chiropractors feared that the ASH contract would lower reimbursement rates for chiropractic services. The state alleged that the illegal boycott improperly influenced the rates paid to
chiropractors; raised chiropractic costs for Anthem; and deprived Anthem, ASH
and consumers of the benefits of competition among chiropractors. Under the settlements, the CCA, CCC and Hirtle have agreed to pay civil penalties to the state, as well as adopt several measures to prevent future anticompetitive practices.
