Ilinois v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
The state of Illinois alleged that Liberty Mutual particiated in scheme led by Marsh McLennan to rig bids on insurance policies and distribute policies to particpating insurers, who would submit high bids when directed to do so. The State also alleged that Liberty Mutual paid undisclosed contingent commissions (payments on top of regular commissions)to insurance brokers and agents to induce them to steer business to Liberty Mutual.
Connecticut v. New Canaan Chevron, Inc. et al., No. CV-83-0064654 (Conn. Super Ct. Norwalk Dist. 1983)
Retail gasoline dealers in Fairfield County, Connecticut were enjoined from agreeing on a uniform level of profit margin, and were further enjoined from refusing to deal with competitors that failed or refused to adhere to such pricing plan.
Connecticut v. Girard Motor Sales, Inc. et. al., No. CV-82-282822 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1983)
Automobile dealership charged with various unfair trade practices and an antitrust violation was enjoined from, among other things, conditioning the purchase of a motor vehicle on the buyer?s agreement to purchase automotive towing services.
Connecticut v. Assoc. Buy Liquor Rite Merchants of Conn., Inc., No. CV-82-278210 (Conn. Super Ct. 1983)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Koppers Co., Inc., et al, No. N-79-284 (D.Conn. 1978)
Liquid bituminous material (road tar) sealing companies resolved Attorney General?s claims of price fixing and unlawful market allocation via entry of consent decree enjoining such conduct and payment of a monetary forfeiture.
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 221357 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. 1978)
Defendant clothing manufacturer settled Attorney General’s claims of resale price maintenance via consent decree enjoining such conduct and payment of monetary forfeiture.
Connecticut v. Noank Shipyard, Inc., No. CV-81-0065040 S (Conn. Super Ct. New London Dist. 1981)
Marina settled Attorney General’s tying claims (requiring boat owners to have work done by or through defendant marina, purchase materials, services, or supplies from it, and pay a premium for a summer slip for boats not stored there for the winter) via consent decree enjoining such conduct.
Connecticut, et al. v. BL Makepeace, Inc., et al., No. 79-642 (D.Conn.)
Retail vendors of architectural, engineering and drafting supplies, equipment and blueprint services settled Attorney General?s claims of price fixing and unlawful market allocation via entry of a consent decree which prohibited such conduct and payment of a monetary forfeiture.
Connecticut v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc, No. CV-78-170142 (Conn. Super. Ct. Danbury 1981)
A Connecticut real estate brokerage and land development firm was barred by a final consent judgment from using restrictive covenants to condition the sale and lease of real estate in a residential development on the use of the firm as the exclusive broker. The firm also was required to release all exclusive brokerage covenants and send notice of the release to all home-owners in the development.
Connecticut v. Viking Sewing Machine Co., Inc., No. CV-79-0240205 (Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford 1979)
Manufacturer of sewing machines was prohibited by a consent decree from agreeing with dealers on resale prices or advertised resale prices in Connecticut for a three-year period.
