Oklahoma v. Neway Valve Co., No. CJ-2014-1482 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Mar. 18, 2014)
Defendants used pirated software to design valves for oil field services industry, competing with Oklahoma companies that also designed valves for the oil industry. State filed suit claiming violations of the state’s consumer protection and antitrust laws, based on unfair methods of competition. The state sought injunctive relief, disgorgemetn and damages.
U.S. and State of Texas v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
USDOJ and State of Texas challenged the acquisition of Texas Industries by Martin Marietta Materials on the grounds that the proposed merger would have likely resulted in increased prices for customers handling Texas Department of Transportation projects in parts of the Dallas metropolitan area. The
Texas Department of Transportation sets specifications for the type of aggregate approved for use in those projects. In Dallas County and parts of the surrounding area,
Martin Marietta and Texas Industries are two of the only three suppliers of Texas Department of Transportation-approved aggregate. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, Martin Marietta must divest its North Troy aggregate quarry in Mill Creek, Oklahoma, its rail yard in Dallas, and its rail yard in Frisco, Texas. All of these assets
predominantly serve parts of the Dallas metropolitan area. Under the proposed settlement, USDOJ Antitrust Division, after consultation with Texas, must approve the buyer of the divested assets.
Oregon v 3M and SPM Settlement Agreement
The settlement resolved allegations that the companies engaged in illegal and anticompetitive practices related to bids for highway pavement marking contracts on State of Oregon projects. The state alleged that 3M, a manufacturer of pavement striping tape, and SPM, a striping contractor, exchanged information regarding bids, coordinated bids, allocated projects and provided false certifications. As a result, the state alleged that competition was reduced and the government received less advantageous terms for the purchase and installation of roadway marking products. The companies denied wrongdoing. The settlement required 3M and SPM to pay a combined $750,000 to the State of Oregon. An additional $750,000 was made available as a credit to the Oregon Department of Transportation for a total of $1.5 million. The companies also agreed to refrain from conduct that could substantially lessen competition and to provide the Department ongoing certification of compliance.
In re North Shore Health System and Long Island Jewish Hospital
State and two hospitals agreed that the merged hospitals would, for a period of five years, pass on $100 million of cost savings to consumers, in the form of new or incremental services, including early detection and screening, increasing services to underserved populations, improvements of health care delivery. the hospitals also agreed to freeze hospital list prices for both inpatient and outpatient services for two years. Annual reports are to be submitted to the attorney general.
United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013)
United States and Texas challenged $220 million acquisition by Cinemark of Rave Holdings. Cinemark is the third-biggest movie chain in the U.S., with 298 theaters in 39 states. Rave Holdings owns 35 theaters in 12 states and specializes in digital and 3-D presentations, According to the complaint, the proposed acquisition would reduce competition in the Voorhees-Somerdale area of New Jersey and the eastern section of Louisville, where Cinemark and Rave are each other’s chief competitors. Cinemark and Rave operate theaters in the western region of Fort Worth. In addition, if the acquisition were to go through as originally planned, the theaters would be less likely to improve or maintain the quality of their sound systems, screens, and food and drinks. Cinemark agreed to divest Movie Tavern Inc. — a Dallas company operating 16 theaters in Fort Worth and Denton, Texas — and three additional Texas theaters to settle the suit.
Florida v. NSK Ltd.
State alleged price-fixing in the market for automotive ball bearings, including bearings used throughout the automobile, from 2000 to the present. The defendants control 75 percent of the market, and entry is not easy. Several of the defendants entered guilty pleas to criminal charges brought by USDOJ.
Investigation Concerning an Agreement Between Competing Pharmaceutical companies to Not challenge Each Other’s sole first to file Exculsivity, Assurance No. 14-034 (Feb. 19, 2014)
State challenged an agreement between two generic pharmaceutical makers under which they agreed not to challenge the exclusivity of any of the other party’s pharmaceuticals (pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act). The parties agreed to drop that provision and not enter into a similar provision with other generic manufacturers
District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.,
The District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and its gasoline distributors for Washington, D.C., to stop enforcement of exclusive‐supply agreements that make one group of affiliated distributors the only suppliers of Exxon‐branded gasoline in D.C. The complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, alleges that the exclusive‐supply agreements violate the District’s Retail Service Station Act. The affiliated distributors – Capitol Petroleum Group, LLC, Anacostia Realty, LLC, and Springfield Petroleum Realty, LLC – are the exclusive gasoline suppliers for about 60% of the 107 gasoline stations in D.C., including all 31 Exxon stations, 19 of 20 Shell stations, all 12 Valero stations, and 3 unbranded stations. The District’s lawsuit challenges agreements that make these affiliated distributors the exclusive suppliers of Exxon‐branded gasoline for the 27 independently‐operated Exxon stations in D.C., or about 25% of the gasoline stations in the city. The exclusive‐supply agreements, or earlier versions of them, were established by ExxonMobil and were transferred in 2009 to the affiliated distributors, along with ExxonMobil’s ownership of the 30 D.C. Exxon stations to which the agreements then pertained. According to the District’s complaint, these supply agreements can now be enforced either by the affiliated distributors or by ExxonMobil through its separate agreements with other area distributors.
The District alleges that the exclusive‐supply agreements allow the affiliated distributors to “set the wholesale prices paid for Exxon‐branded gasoline in D.C., depriving D.C. residents . . . of the benefits of competition in the wholesale supply of Exxon‐branded gasoline.”
Utah v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc., No. 2:99-CV00303H
Plaintiff state entered into a consent decree with Allied to ensure that Allied did not use its control of the Washington County landfill to disadvantage competitors. Allied agreed to treat all haulers the same with respect to storage of waste containers, hauling outside normal business hours, inclusion of banned hazardous waste in waste hauled to the landfill. Allied also will not tie the sale of any other services (e.g. recycling) or products to the purchase of commercial waste services from Allied. Allied will not enter into any contracts for a term of more than 2 years, and there shall be no automatic renewal (evergreen) contracts for longer than one year.Allied may not provide any commercial waste-hauling services below cost so long as it has more thatn 60% of commercial small container waste hauling in Washingotn County.
