U.S. and Florida v. Reuter Recycling of Florida Inc., No. 1:95CV01982 (D.D.C. 1995)
State of Florida and the Justice Department filed a joint antitrust action and proposed consent decree in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. against Waste Management and Reuter Recycling alleging that their proposed merger, by removing one of only three competitors in the market, would lessen competition in the market for municipal solid waste disposal service in Broward and Dade Counties. The proposed settlement allowed the companies to merge as long as they agree to keep a waste transfer station that Waste Management will acquire, as part of the deal, open to other waste disposal competitors.
U.S. and Florida v. Morton Plant Health System, No. 94-748-CIV-T-23E (M.D. Fla. 1994)
Joint US/Florida consent decree permitting merger of two largest hospitals in St. Petersburg, Florida
U.S. and Florida v. Morton Plant Health System Inc., No. 94-748-CIV-T-23E (M.D. Fla. 1999)
US and Florida sought order enforcing terms of 1994 merger settlement
In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Investigation Litigation, 94 CIV 3996; M.D.L. No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); 169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Although suit was never filed, the Plaintiff States informally participated in a federal private class action seeking treble damages, reimbursement of costs, attorneys fees and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant financial investment companies conspired to increase and fix the ?spreads? paid for sales of class securities. The Plaintiff States? focus was to ensure that individual investors and public pension funds were fairly represented in the litigation and settlement.
U.S., New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida v. Waste Management, Inc., Ocho Acquisition Corp., and Eastern Environmental Services, Inc.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the acquisition of Eastern Environmental Services, Inc. (Eastern) by Waste Management Services, Inc. (WMI), alleging the merger would substantially lessen competition in the waste hauling business.
U.S. Florida, and Maryland v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 1:94CV02588 (D.D.C. 1995)
Plaintiff States sought an injunction alleging that the merger between Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) and Attwoods PLC (Attwoods) would substantially reduce competition in the solid waste hauling market.
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
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 1361 (D. Me. 2002) MDL-1391; No. 00-CIV-5853 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y Aug. 8, 2000) (complaint)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant CD distributors unlawfully conspired to implement stringent minimum advertised price (MAP) policies in violation of antitrust laws.
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.
Colorado, et al. v. Airline Tariff Pub. Co.; No. 1:90-CV-2485-MHS and MDL No. 861 (N.D. Georgia) (October 1994)
Settlement providing for discounted ticket prices for state and local government agency air travel reached between Plaintiff States and certain airlines over price-fixing scheme.
