United States et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. 1:10-cv-00139(D.D.C. 2010)
U.S. and 17 states sued to enjoin merger of Ticketmaster, the nation’s largest ticketing services company, and Live Nation, the nation’s largest concert promoter.
According to the Complaint, the parties announced their merger shortly after Live Nation had entered the concert ticketing business as Ticketmaster’s closest competitor. The complaint alleged that consumers and major concert venues would
face higher ticket service charges as a result of the merger
The settlement requires the merging parties to license its ticketing software to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG). AEG is the nation’s second largest promoter and the operator of some of the largest concert venues in the country. The merging parties are further required to divest Ticketmaster’s entire Paciolan business, which provides a venue-managed platform for selling tickets through the venue’s own web site. Paciolan is to be divested to Comcast/Spectacor, a sports and entertainment company with a management relationship with a number of concert venues. Comcast also has ticketing experience through its New Era ticketing company.The settlement also prohibits the merging parties from retaliating against venue owners who contract with the merging parties’ competitors.
Mississippi v. Entergy, No. C-2008-2086 (Chan. Ct. Hinds Cty. Miss. 2008)
State filed suit against Entergy, an electricity provider regulated by the state PSC, alleging that Entergy violated its duty to Mississippi customers under the PSC’s rules by charging higher prices for electricity in Mississippi than in other states, with no justification in costs. The case alleged violations of the state’s consumer protection act, fraud and unjust enrichment, as well as one antitrust claim, alleging restraint of trade on the production of electricity and that Entergy engrossed and forestalled electricity markets in the state.
Florida v. Champion Laboratories, No. 1:09-cv-02321 (N.D. Ill. 2009)
State filed against nine manufacturers of aftermarket auto filters, alleging a scheme to illegally fix prices, allocate customers and eliminate price competition since at least 1999. The suit alleges that high-level filter company executives conspired to maintain artificially high prices for
their companies� filters by agreeing among themselves to fix, increase, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of filters sold in the United States, in violation of state and federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The executives allegedly communicated about prices and even met with each other on numerous occasions, including at filter industry trade association meetings, to fix the prices and allocate customers and markets. The lawsuit further alleges the defendant companies used misleading information in letters seeking to justify their price increases. The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys� fees and costs as well as civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation against each defendant. Private litigation is pending, USDOJ investigated but did not pursue case.
California v. Education Media and Publishing Group Ltd, No. 09-2134-JCS (N.D. Cal. 2009, May 15, 2009)
As part of the review of the acquisition by textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin of textbook publisher Harcourt Education, the state filed a consent decree under which price increases on California-adopted textbooks and workbooks would be capped at 4.25 percent per annum for six years. The merging parties agreed to pay the state $300,00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Minnesota v. Children’s Health of St. Paul, No. 4-94-CV-513 (D. Minn. 1994),
The children’s hospitals in Minneapolis and St. Paul sought to merge. The state filed a complaint and eventuallyreached a settlement, the term of which was five years, under which the entity would not be able to merge with any health care provider or specialty physician practice without the approval of the Attorney General. The merged entity would not be able to manage pediatric practices at other area hospitals. The merged entity was also prohibited from ent4ering into exclusive agreements with any group purchaser. The merged entity also could not, for two years, enter into any exclusive contract with physician specialty groups that would prevent them from providing services at other hospitals.
Connecticut v. Amity Package, CV-84-228912 (Conn. Super Ct., New Haven Dist. 1984)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Nutmeg Test Boring, No. CV-84-298394 (Conn. Super Ct. Hartford Dist.1984)
Trade association and its members were enjoined from fixing the prices for industrial drilling and test-boring services, and from communicating certain pricing information with each other.
Connecticut v. Super Saver Liquor Outlets, No. CV-84-228911 (Conn. Super Ct., New Haven Dist.)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Serlin Group
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Mobilia, Inc. No. CV-81-0065134 (Conn. Super. Ct. New London Dist.)
Owner of mobile home park engaged in unlawful tying arrangement by conditioning the lease of rental site on the lessee’s agreement to purchase a mobile home from the park owner.
