New York v. Blum, No. 3:93cv1604 (D. Conn.1994)
New York challenged a Connecticut statute requiring the registration of milk sellers. The statute had vastly different penalties for out-of-state milk sellers and New York alleged that it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution
New York v. Transit Mix Concrete Corp. 84 Civ. 4194 (S.D.N.Y.)
Ready-mix concrete producers and sellers in New York County and the surrounding four-county area combined in such a way as to eliminate all competition in the market.
New York v. Niagara Milk Cooperative, Inc. 95 Civ. 6290 (W.D.N.Y.
Niagra Milk Cooperative participated in a bid-rigging conspiracy, allocating government and private contracts among the members of the Cooperative and other co-conspirators.
Maryland v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 2:06-cv-01298-JP (E.D.Pa Mar. 27, 2006)
States sued manufacturer of antitdepressant Paxil, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled for $14 million.
New York v. Candle Business Systems, Inc., No. 402805-02 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Aug. 29, 2002)
Plaintiff state alleged a decade-long conspiracy between two of the New York metropolitan area’s largest copier and duplicator retailers to supply customers in violation of the Donnelly Act, New York’s antitrust law. The investigation also led to the indictment of a salesperson for bribery and bid-rigging in connection with the sale of copiers and duplicators to New York City schools.
New York v. Baranovich, No. 04401698, Supreme Court of NY, NY County (2004)
E-Bay auction store owner and his son agreed to settle charges that they had submitted more than 100 shill bids in electronic auctions they ran on E-Bay
New York v. Eggleston,
State alleged defendants submitted sham bids in online auctions run through E-Bay. Parties agreed to settlement under which defendants would pay $28,000 in penalties and restitution.
New York v. Accent Stripe, Inc., 94 CV 0544 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 7, 1994)
Defendants agreed to submit collusive, noncompetitive and rigged bids and allocated among themselves certain areas of New York state to obtain contracts for the sale and application of line stripping in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
New York v. American International Group (AIG), New York Supreme Court Index No. 401720/05, Judge Ramos
Original action filed in New York State Supreme Court alleged that AIG engaged in numerous fraudulent business transactions and improper accounting that exaggerated the strength of the company’s core underwriting business to prop up its stock price. In addition, evidence separately revealed that AIG engaged in bid-rigging schemes for excess casualty insurance business and used contingent commission agreements or placement service agreements to steer business
County of Orange v. Sullivan Highway Products, Inc.; 1989-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) PP 68,815, 68,880 (S.D.N.Y 1989)
Defendants liable for damages after engaging in a conspiracy to rig bids with respect to contracts for the sale or sale and application of asphalt in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
