Missouri v. AU Optronics Corp., (N.D. Cal. pending transfer to MDL 1827, 2010)
Following guilty pleas to criminal price-fixing by several LCD manufacturers, and a conviction after trial of another, plaintiff states filed suit against LCD manufacturers, alleging that top executives of several companies held numerous secret meetings from at least 1999 through at least 2006 for the purpose of exchanging information and setting prices on LCD panels. According to the complaint, companies such as Dell, Apple, and Hewlett Packard were among those targeted by the manufacturers’ price-fixing scheme. According to the lawsuit, the illegal overcharges were ultimately borne by state consumers and state government purchasers. The suit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and state antitrust statutes. The first settlement covered Chimei Innolux, Chimei Optoelectronics, Hannstar, Hitachi, Samsung, and Sharp and their subsidiaries. The second settlement, for $543.5 million, was with AU Optronics, Toshiba and LG Display and subsidiaries.
In the Matter of A Plus Driving School and Peter Schmirler, No. 10-C-04 (Wis. Dept. of Ag. Trade and Cons. Prot. 2010)
The Attorney General’s office became involved in this case after a confidential tip that Mr. Schmirler had attempted to fix prices with his rivals. After an investigation by the Division of Criminal Investigation, the case was brought as an administrative action before the Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection. The parties reached an agreement, embodied in a Special Order that requires Schmirler and A-Plus to refrain from unfair trade practices, including attempts to fix prices, allocate territory or threaten rivals with predatory pricing for five years.
United States et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. 1:10-cv-00139(D.D.C. 2010)
U.S. and 17 states sued to enjoin merger of Ticketmaster, the nation’s largest ticketing services company, and Live Nation, the nation’s largest concert promoter.
According to the Complaint, the parties announced their merger shortly after Live Nation had entered the concert ticketing business as Ticketmaster’s closest competitor. The complaint alleged that consumers and major concert venues would
face higher ticket service charges as a result of the merger
The settlement requires the merging parties to license its ticketing software to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG). AEG is the nation’s second largest promoter and the operator of some of the largest concert venues in the country. The merging parties are further required to divest Ticketmaster’s entire Paciolan business, which provides a venue-managed platform for selling tickets through the venue’s own web site. Paciolan is to be divested to Comcast/Spectacor, a sports and entertainment company with a management relationship with a number of concert venues. Comcast also has ticketing experience through its New Era ticketing company.The settlement also prohibits the merging parties from retaliating against venue owners who contract with the merging parties’ competitors.
United States, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan v. Dean Foods, Co. No. 10-C-0059 (E.D. Wisc. 2010)
States and USDOJ challenged already consummated acquisition by Dean Foods Co of Foremost Farms USA. Complaint alleged loss of competition in two markets: School milk contracts in Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan, and fluid milk sales in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, because Dean and Foremost were the first and fourth largest sellers in those states. The settlement requires Dean to divest a significant milk processing plant in Waukesha, Wis., and related assets that it acquired from the Foremost Farms USA Cooperative, including the Golden Guernsey brand name. The settlement also requires that Dean notify USDOJ before it makes any future acquisition of milk processing plants for which the purchase price is more than $3 million. In addition, the attorney general for the state of Michigan filed a separate settlement which required Dean Foods to continue to bid on school milk contracts in the Upper Peninsula until 2016, and required that their bid be based either on a Cap Price which varies based on the price of raw milk, or a set price that does not vary.
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 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.
Missouri v. American Cyanamid Co.; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4722,.1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,712 (W.D. MO. 1997)
The Plaintiff States alleged that between 1989 and 1995, American Cyanamid Company (American Cyanamid) entered into contracts for Crop Protection Chemicals (CPC), with its dealers in which they agreed formally and in writing to a rebate program that held floor prices at levels equal to Defendant’s wholesale prices for affected CPC.
Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic, No. 97C-0418 (W.D. Wis. June 19, 1997), 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,855 (W.D. Wis. 1997)
State sought to enjoin the merger between Marshfield Clinic and Wausau Medical Center, S.C., alleging that the merger would substantially impair the competition for health care services in the Wausau, Wisconsin area.
Wisconsin v. Downey, 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,567 (Wis. Cir. Ct. 1975)
State sought injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant veterinarians entered agreements, contracts and other arrangements with one another to adhere to fee schedules and pricing formula with reference to fees charged for veterinary services.
Wisconsin v. Morris K. Lear (No. 99-CF-1365), Western Wisc. Inspection (99-CF-1366), Bruce Getten (99-CF-1367), Ronald Habermann (No. 99-CF-1368), Indep. Inspections (99-CF-1369) (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dane Cty 2000)
Wisconsin alleged defendants were involved in an agreement to limit competition for state contracts to conduct inspections of liquid storage tanks. Known as the “LPO” cases (Local Program Operators)
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
