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.
In the Matter of Big Y Foods, No. 03-1983-E (Super. Ct. of Mass, Suffolk Cty. April 25, 2003)
State expressed concern about sale of supermarkets in Western Massachusetts to major competitor. Big Y agreed to use same pricing for new stores as it did for all stores in the area, agreed to use its best efforts to sell the supermarket sites for use as supermrkets.
In the Matter of Harvard Communicty Health Plan, Inc. and Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., No. 95-0331 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Jan. 18, 1995)
State had concerned about proposed merger of two large HMOs in eastern Massachusetts
In the Matter of Baycare Health Partners, Inc., No. 94-5653 (Superior Court of Mass., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 4, 1994)
State was concerned about contractual provisions in proposed Phyisician Hospital Organization (PHO) which would require participating physicians to bring new contract opportunities with health plans to the PHO first.
Florida v. HCA, No. 03-V-177-FtM-29DNF (M.D. Fl. April 18, 2003)
State alleged that defendants had unlawfully allocated geographic and product markets among themselves. Markets included acute care hosptial services, open heart surgery, and health facilities in several Florida counties.
In the Matter of Tri-County Hospital and Wadena Med. Center, No. C4-94-11900 (Ramsey Cty. Cr. Minn., Nov. 30, 1994)
State alleged hospital and large clinic sought to allocate the markets for x-ray equipment and colposcopy equipment.
California v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 01-10895 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2001)
States sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar), arguing that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply and wholesale marketing of gasoline.
Connecticut v. Newell Co., No. 2:92CV00566AVC (D. Conn. Oct. 2, 1992)
State filed suit to prevent the merger of two companies in the hardware market.
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. 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.
