Maryland et al v. Mitsubishi Electronics America; 1992-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶69,743 (D. Md. 1992)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (MELA) conspired with its dealers to set or maintain the resale price of its electronics equipment. In the settlement with Plaintiff States, MELA was enjoined from engaging in the alleged conduct and agreed to pay $6 million dollars for administrative costs and to reimburse qualified buyers.
New York et al. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., Roche Vitamin, Inc.; Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. LTD; Eisai Co, LTD; Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd; BASF Corporation (master case)
In various state court filings around the country, Plaintiff States alleged that Defendants conspired to set the prices of vitamins that go into various products. The exemplar case upon which all other settlements were ultimately based was filed in the District of Columbia in conjunction with various private class actions.
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 ex rel. Butterworth v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al. No. MDL 1189 (N.D. Fla 2000)
States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant paper companies conspired to fix prices for commercial tissue, in violation of state and federal antitrust law.
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.
Florida v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 91-40002, In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 (N.D. Fla, 1991); 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 70,241 (N.D. Fla. 1993) (Settlement Agreement)
Florida sought an injunction and monetary relief, alleging that Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Bristol-Myers) conspired to fix the prices and monopolize the industry for infant formula.
Florida v. JW Conner & Son Contracting Company et al. No. 82-1322-Civ-T-WC (M.D.Fla. 1983); No. 84-7023-Civ-MMP (N.D.Fla. 1984)
The State of Florida sought treble damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant highway construction companies colluded or rigged the bids in submission of construction contracts, subcontracts, and contracts for equipment, materials, or supplies.
- « Previous
- 1
- …
- 8
- 9
- 10
