Texas v. Title Data Inc., No. D-1-GV-08-000981 (Tx. Dist. Ct. Travis County 2008)
Plaintiff state alleged that defendant, a joint title plant, was using restrictions on sharing of its title information to suppress competition in the market for title company services in a number of Texas counties. A settlement was reached, lifting the restrictions.
Ohio, et al, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.(D.D.C. 2002); see also In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (BMS) wrongfully maintained a monopoly on Taxol, a drug for which the Plaintiff States alleged Defendant fraudulently filed a patent. BMS’s alleged wrongful action delayed entry into the market by generic competitors of the drug, resulting in higher prices for Taxol. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlemen, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.
New York et al. v. Reebok International, Ltd; 1995-1 Trade Cas. 71,558 (CCH), 96 F.3d 44, 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Reebok International Ltd. (Reebok) and The Rockport
Company (Rockport) conspired with certain dealers to set the minimum retail prices at which retailers were permitted to sell Reebok and Rockport women?s athletic footwear to consumers.
California, et al., v. Chevron Corporation and Texaco, Inc. No. 01-07746 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2001)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Chevron Corporation (Chevron) and Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in the markets for refining, wholesaling, and retailing of gasoline and other motor vehicles; aviation gasoline and jet fuel; and California crude oil.
Florida, et al. v. Nine West Group, Inc. and John Doe, 1-500, 80 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nine West Group (Nine West) conspired with unnamed dealers to set the minimum resale price at
which retailers were permitted to sell women’s dress shoes to customers.
In the Matter of GSI Commerce, Inc.
Alleged restraints by provider of e-commerce services on prices and advertising on the Internet.
New York et al. v. Federated Department Stores
Anticompetitive effects posed by proposed merger of two of the nation’s largest department store retailers
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.