New York et al. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., Roche Vitamin, Inc.; Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. LTD; Eisai Co, LTD; Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd; BASF Corporation (master case)
In various state court filings around the country, Plaintiff States alleged that Defendants conspired to set the prices of vitamins that go into various products. The exemplar case upon which all other settlements were ultimately based was filed in the District of Columbia in conjunction with various private class actions.
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. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (S.D.N.Y. 1989)
Plaintiff States sued for damages and injunctive relief on their own behalf and as parens patriae. The complaint alleged that Defendant conspired to fix or maintain the resale price for which dealers were able to sell Matsushita?s products. The case was settled. Plaintiff States were awarded damages and injunctive relief.
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.
In the Matter of GSI Commerce, Inc.
Alleged restraints by provider of e-commerce services on prices and advertising on the Internet.
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.
