Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., No. 02CH19575 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty IL)

Plaintiff State sued five sorbates manufacturers, alleging price fixing. Case settled with cy pres distribution of $1.6 million to nutrition and fitness programs at financially disadvantaged schools.

Read More →

U.S. Illinois, and Missouri v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

States of Missouri and Illinois joined in United States Department of Justice action to enjoin acquisition or to remedy anticompetitive effects from proposed acquisition by waste hauler.

Read More →

U.S. v. Sony Corporation of America, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20815, 2000-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,787 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

U.S. and the States sought to enjoin Loews Theatres, Inc. (Loews) and Cineplex from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in first screening movie theaters.

Read More →

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.

Read More →

New York et al. v. Salton, Inc. No. 02-CV-7096 (S.D.N.Y, 2002), 265 F. Supp 2d 310 (2003)

States complaint against Salton, Inc. (Salton), alleged that the company conspired to set a floor price with retailers of its contact grill, the George Foreman (GF) Grill. In some cases, noncompliance with the floor price led to suspension of shipments of GF grills to retailers. Also, Plaintiff States alleged that Salton prohibited its retailers from selling competitive contact grills.

Read More →

New York v. Aon Corporation

States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants unlawfully deceived clients by steering clients’ insurance business, promising increased retail business to insurers in return for their commitments to use Aon’s reinsurance services, suggesting that an insurer raise its quotes for two of Aon’s clients, entering into undisclosed “producer funding agreements” whereby insurers directly funded the hiring of Aon brokers, entering into secret “pay-to-play” arrangements with insurers whereby Aon obtained undisclosed compensation, agreeing with preferred insurers to “freeze out” a competing insurer, and providing preferred insurers with first looks, last looks, and exclusive looks on preferred business.

Read More →