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…

Read More →

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…

Read More →

Washington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-2-14174-5 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. 2022)

Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit against 19 chicken producers accusing them of a wide-ranging illegal conspiracy to inflate and manipulate prices, rig contract bids and coordinate industry supply reductions to maximize profits. The defendants account for approximately 95 percent of the broiler chickens sold in the United States. The complaint asserts their conduct violates the…

Read More →

Attorney General v. Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute, LLC (Fl. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty., Apr. 30, 2020)

Florida reached a multimillion-dollar agreement with one of the largest oncology medical practices in Florida to resolve state antitrust and consumer protection concerns. The proposed consent decree with Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, LLC follows a civil antitrust investigation into whether the health care provider entered into illegal agreements with competitors that allocated geographic…

Read More →

Maryland v. Alger Oil Co. and Tri-Gas & Oil Co., No. CV-10878 (Cir. Ct. for Queen Anne’s Co. 2005)

Alger agreed to purchase contracts of Tri-Gas customers north of Centreville, MD. Tri-Gas agreed to purchase contracts of Alger customers south of Centreville, MD.

Read More →

Florida v. Barber Dairies, Inc. et al., No. 89-40019-MP (N.D. Fla. 1989)

Florida sought treble damages, investigative costs, attorneys fees, and permanent injunctive relief, alleging that defendant companies conspired to enter agreements with potential competitors to rig bids on Florida county school milk requirement contracts.

Read More →

In re Carbon Dioxide Industry Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Fla. 1996) M.D.L. 940

The State of Florida sought treble damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against defendant carbon dioxide companies, alleging that since 1968, the companies engaged in a conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce by allocating customer contracts and/or rigging bids for the supply of carbon dioxide to governmental entities and other purchasers in Florida.

Read More →

Florida v. Anchor Seven Federal Credit Union, et al.

Florida settled for damages and injunctive relief against defendant automobile dealers and credit unions, the state contended that dealers and credit unions had combined or conspired to restrain trade and competition for automobile financing, pricing, or stabilizing prices for protection packages offered in conjunction with automobile sales at off-site locations in Duval and Escambia Counties.

Read More →

Florida v. Jones Chemicals, Inc., et al (M.D. FL, 1990); Florida v. Industrial Chemicals, et al (N.D. FL, 1990)

Florida filed complaints alleging that Defendants conspired to restrain trade by allocating contracts and groups of contracts to supply liquid chlorine.

Read More →

Maine v. Getchell Bros., Inc. 1989 WL 265292 (Me.Super.), 1989-2 Trade Cases P 68,758

Complaint charges market allocation in the sale of packaged or bulk ice. Consent Decree imposes injunctive relief, $35,000 civil penalties against each Defendant and costs.

Read More →