Idaho v. Daicel Chemical Co. et al., No. 30379 (Idaho 2005)
State filed suit on behalf of indirect purchasers after federal guilty pleas by sorbates manufacturers. Case dismissed on grounds that Idaho Competition Act which permitted recovery by indirect purchasers was not enacted until 2000 and did not permit retroactive application.
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.
Ohio v. Daicel Chemical Industries LTD et al.
State of Ohio filed suit against Sorbates manufacturers. Complaint alleged that the manufacturers met to set prices and allocate markets. Case settled.
Utah v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. (Civ. No. 20910931 MI) (3rd Dis. Utah, 2002)
Defendant sorbate manufacturers were charged with collusion, price-fixing and market allocation
New York v. Daicel Chemical Industries et al, No. 403878/02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty., Sept. 24, 2004)
Charges seventeen-year international conspiracy to fix the price of sorbates, a preservative used in many foods and beverages.
Washington v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al, No. 05-2-05779-3 (King Cty. Super. Ct. 2005)
Sorbates antitrust litigaiton.
