Nebraska v. Daimler Truck et al.
Nebraska, with Energy Marketers of America and Renewable Fuels Nebraska, brought an antitrust action against four manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty vehicles (“MHDVs”) – Daimler Truck North America; International Motors; Paccar; and Volvo Group North America – and the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association. The lawsuit alleges that defendants agreed to reduce the manufacture of…
Texas et al. v. BlackRock et al.
Thirteen attorneys general brought an antitrust action against three institutional investors – BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard Group. The lawsuit alleges that defendants used their acquisition of stock to reduce competition in coal markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and state antitrust laws and that defendants agreed amongst themselves to reduce…
Connecticut et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:19-cv-02407, (E.D. Pa. filed in MDL 05/30/2019)
44 plaintiff states filed suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals and 19 of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers alleging a broad conspiracy to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition and unreasonably restrain trade for more than 100 different generic drugs. The lawsuit was originally Connecticut, was transferred to the MDL court in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit…
Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, et al., Case No. 20-cv-3539 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2020), MDL 2724 (E.D. Pa.)
Plaintiff states filed a third lawsuit stemming from the ongoing antitrust investigation into a widespread conspiracy by generic drug manufacturers to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition, and unreasonably restrain trade for generic drugs sold across the United States. The complaint focuses on 80 topical generic drugs and names 26 corporate Defendants and 10…
California ex rel. Lockyer v. Safeway371 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2005)
Challenge to a revenue sharing plan by four supermarket employers to share revenues based on fixed market share and fixed profit percentage during and after a labor dispute involving three of these employers.
In re August Lumber Company, Jan. 1989 Assurance of Discontinuance, Kennebec Super. Ct.
Complaint charges unfair competition in joint advertising of sales and hours of operation (e.g. all closed on certain holidays) by four area lumber companies. Assurance of Discontinuance under 5 M.R.S.A. § 207.
New Hampshire v.Simon Property Group, Inc., Merrimack Cty Super. Ct. 2005
State alleged that defendant compaines conspired to bar the entry of a competing jeweler in the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, NH
John T. Gesin, et al vs. Texas; Cause No. 91-2791; 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Defendants filed for declaration Judgment. Texas countersued Defendants for damages, civil penalties, injunction and attorney fees, alleging they conspired to boycott a low-cost veterinarian in Austin, Texas
Texas v. Allen Anderson et al. , 1991-2 CCH (Trade) Cas. 69,412 (Travis County Texas 1990)
Texas filed suit against defendants for civil penalties, injunction and attorney fees, alleging defendants conspired to restrain trade in the provision of otolaryngology physician services in San Angelo, Texas & conspired to boycott a San Angelo otolaryngologist.
U.S. and Connecticut v. Healthcare Partners, Inc., No. 3:95CV01946 (D. Conn. 1995)
After join investigation,United States and Connecticut alleged that sole hosptial in Danbury Connecticut conspired with physicians to preclude entry of managed care plans into the market. Consent decree was entered.
