Colorado, et al. v. Airline Tariff Pub. Co.; No. 1:90-CV-2485-MHS and MDL No. 861 (N.D. Georgia) (October 1994)
Settlement providing for discounted ticket prices for state and local government agency air travel reached between Plaintiff States and certain airlines over price-fixing scheme.
Maryland et al v. Mitsubishi Electronics America; 1992-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶69,743 (D. Md. 1992)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (MELA) conspired with its dealers to set or maintain the resale price of its electronics equipment. In the settlement with Plaintiff States, MELA was enjoined from engaging in the alleged conduct and agreed to pay $6 million dollars for administrative costs and to reimburse qualified buyers.
New York v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 671 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nintendo Corporation, Ltd. (Nintendo) engaged in a conspiracy with dealers to fix or maintain the resale price for which the Nintendo Entertainment System video console could be sold.
In Re: Toys ‘R’ Us Antitrust Litigation, 191 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); M.D.L. 1211
Plaintiff States alleged that Toys R Us entered into vertical and horizontal agreements with numerous toy manufacturers to limit the supply of certain popular toys to warehouse clubs.
New York et al. v. Salton, Inc. No. 02-CV-7096 (S.D.N.Y, 2002), 265 F. Supp 2d 310 (2003)
States complaint against Salton, Inc. (Salton), alleged that the company conspired to set a floor price with retailers of its contact grill, the George Foreman (GF) Grill. In some cases, noncompliance with the floor price led to suspension of shipments of GF grills to retailers. Also, Plaintiff States alleged that Salton prohibited its retailers from selling competitive contact grills.
Missouri v. American Cyanamid Co.; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4722,.1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,712 (W.D. MO. 1997)
The Plaintiff States alleged that between 1989 and 1995, American Cyanamid Company (American Cyanamid) entered into contracts for Crop Protection Chemicals (CPC), with its dealers in which they agreed formally and in writing to a rebate program that held floor prices at levels equal to Defendant’s wholesale prices for affected CPC.
Florida ex rel. Butterworth v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al. No. MDL 1189 (N.D. Fla 2000)
States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant paper companies conspired to fix prices for commercial tissue, in violation of state and federal antitrust law.
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.
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.
