Alaska v. Safeway, Inc., No. 3AN-99-4371 Civil. (Alaska Superior Court April 13, 1999) (1999 WL 1209785)
The State of Alaska investigated the proposed merger of two large supermarkets for potential antitrust violations. The investigation resulted in the execution of a consent decree that required the divestiture of seven stores in relevant markets to a viable competitor.
In re Towne BMW, In re Holtz House of Vehicles, Inc.
Alleged collusion, market allocation, and price-fixing between dealers of BMW automobiles in upstate New York.
In the Matter of Investigation of Simon Property Group, Assurance No. 17-154 (Aug. 21, 2017)
New York entered into a settlement with Simon Property Group that prohibits Simon from using anticompetitive tactics to thwart the development of competing outlet centers in New York City. Simon agreed to immediately modify contractual restrictions that have prevented retailers at Woodbury Common center from opening outlet stores in New York City locations. According to the Attorney General, Simon had monopoly power in the market for retail space in outlet centers in the New York City area. The investigation also confirmed that many retailers at Woodbury Common wished to open additional outlets in New York City, but were largely prevented from doing so by so-called radius restrictions in their leases at Woodbury Common. These clauses typically restrict retailers (by threat of a substantial penalty) from opening a second store within 60 air miles of Woodbury, creating a vast 11,000 square mile zone in which Simon faced little effective competition from other outlet centers. In addition to a $945,000 monetary payment to New York State, Simon agreed to revise existing leases to remove radius restrictions that would otherwise prevent outlet center development and for the next 10 years, Simon has agreed to cease using radius restrictions, or other exclusionary tactics, that might deter retailers from opening additional outlet stores. Simon has also agreed to the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement. To be overseen by the Attorney General’s office.
Wisconsin v. Marshfield Clinic, No. 97C-0418 (W.D. Wis. June 19, 1997), 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,855 (W.D. Wis. 1997)
State sought to enjoin the merger between Marshfield Clinic and Wausau Medical Center, S.C., alleging that the merger would substantially impair the competition for health care services in the Wausau, Wisconsin area.
Florida v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 91-40002, In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 (N.D. Fla, 1991); 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 70,241 (N.D. Fla. 1993) (Settlement Agreement)
Florida sought an injunction and monetary relief, alleging that Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Bristol-Myers) conspired to fix the prices and monopolize the industry for infant formula.
Washington v. Wenatchee Valley Clinic, 1988-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,118 (E.D. Wash. 1988)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant health care providers conspired to fix the price for the delivery or sale of emergency medical services or other health care services. Further, the Plaintiff State alleged that Defendants allocated the markets for the sale of ambulatory surgery facility services, radiation facility services or other health care services.
Wisconsin v. Downey, 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,567 (Wis. Cir. Ct. 1975)
State sought injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant veterinarians entered agreements, contracts and other arrangements with one another to adhere to fee schedules and pricing formula with reference to fees charged for veterinary services.
Washington v. Washington Dental Service, 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,716 (King County Super. Ct. 1997)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Washington Dental Service (WDS) maintained “Most Favored Nation Clauses” in its dentist agreements which require that a participating dentist’s fee for any given procedure used as a basis for payment of WDS claims shall not exceed the lowest fee which the dentist charges or offers to or receives from any person or dental plan.
Washington v. Grays Harbor Medical Bureau, 1986-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,979 (Wash. Super. Ct. 1986)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Grays Harbor Medical Bureau conspired with other health care providers to agree upon fees for reimbursement for services to be offered or provided to Defendant?s subscribers, or the territory or area within which Defendant offers its services.
Washington v. Larson, 199602 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71, 475 (Wash. Super. Ct. 1996)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant pharmacies conspired to fix the price of prescription drugs and agreed not to deal with insurers and other third-party payors.
