Florida v. Saul & Company, et al., No. 02- 5768CAJHS (20th Jud. Cir.,)(May 23, 2002).
State alleged that parties rigged bids on interest rates for tax certificates sold at auction by the state. Parties settled for $754,500 in damages.
North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. McClure et al., No. 03 CVS 005617 (Wake County Super. Ct. 2003)
State alleged a group of environmental consulting firms conspired to rig bids and inflate prices that the state pays to clean sites contaminated by leaking petroleum tanks.
North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Byrd et al., Nos. 05CVS8038 through 3047 (Wake County Super. Ct. 2005)
State alleged parties conspired to fix prices and rig bids for public auctions of real estate
located in Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, Durham, Angier, Apex, Hillsborough communities. The conspiracy involved properties that were up for routine auction through county Clerks of Superior Court due to foreclosure.
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. 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. 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. 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
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. Yonkers Contracting Co., 90 Civ. 3779 (CES) (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 1990), 1991 WL 120255 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 1991),.88 Civ. 2952 (CES) (S.D.N.Y. April 27, 1988), 87 Cr 0560 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 1987)
Defendants conspired to rig bids with respect to contracts for the sale or sale and application of asphalt in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Settlement for $2,000,000
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.
