Ohio v. Cargill, Tuscarawas Cty Ct. of Common Pleas (Mar. 21, 2012)
State alleged that two rock salt producers had agreed to divide up the Ohio market for rock salt, assigning different contracts to the two different producers. State alleged that the defendants actively submitted sham losing bids, which also excluded other bidders because Ohio’s “Buy Ohio” provisions give a preference to Ohio companies if at least two Ohio producers submit bids.The parties settled in June 2015 with a payments totaling $11.5 million.
Connecticut v. K&S Aktiongesellschaft (Ct.Super.Ct. Oct. 13, 2009)
In state action parallel to FTC action, Connecticut settled with parties to a merger of salt producers who had both had contracts with the state DOT for road deicing. Road deicing assets were divested to a regional company in order to preserve competition for Connecticut road de-icing contracts. The merging parties were required to provide up to 120,000 tons of de-icing salt for three years.
Nixon et al., v. Cargill, Inc., No. 4:97-cv-0687 (E.D.Mo.)April 1997)
Northern Mississippi River and Ohio River States sought to minimize the impact of the merger of Cargill and Akzo by divestiture of bulk deicing salt supply agreement.
U.S. v. Cargill Inc., No. 6:97-CV-6161 (W.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997)
The U.S. and Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Akzo and Cargill, Inc. (Cargill) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would substantially reduce competition in the mining and sale of salt products.
