Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. Microsoft, No. G2004-1542 (Chan. Ct. Hinds County Miss., July 16, 2008)
The state sued Microsoft in 2004 on behalf of governmental purchasers and as parens patriae for its citizens claiming the company monopolized the market for software and caused customers to pay more for software than they would have if there had been competition. Microsoft agreed to pay Mississippi $40 million. Up to $60 million in hardware/software vouchers will be provided to consumers, businesses, all county/local/municipal government entities, public schools and public school districts. Depending on how many vouchers go unclaimed, Mississippi could get an addition $8 million. All Mississippi residents, businesses, county/local governments or schools that purchased Microsoft products or computers containing Microsoft products between January 1, 1996 and June 2009 were eligible to receive a voucher of $12 or $5 (depending on which products were purchased). The vouchers could be used towards the purchase of any software or hardware product (not just Microsoft).
Ohio v. Jones Chemicals, Inc. et al.
State of Ohio sought to recover damages from chemical companies for price fixing and customer allocation on packaged chlorine.
Ohio v. Duellman Electric Supply Co. et al.
State of Ohio filed suit on behalf of five school districts in the Dayton area. Complaint accused the defendants of meeting monthly to fix prices of electrical wire and conduit. Case was settled by consent decree.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Visa USA, Inc. et al., No. 03-C-551 (Cir. Ct. Ohio Cty. 2003)
The State sued Visa and Mastercard claiming the companies used their market power in general credit cards to force merchants to accept their branded debit cards. The high cost of accepting the branded debit cards forced retailers to charge consumers more for goods purchased. As a settlement, Visa paid $9.3 million and MasterCard paid $2.3 million to state, which was used to fund a tax holiday on Energy Star products, and a total of $600,000 to the Attorney General’s revolving fund.
In the Matter of Medical Transportation Management, Inc.,–Letter Agreement from Missouri AG, Sept. 21, 2005)
Incumbent broker of non-emergency transportation services under state-wide contract entered into exclusive dealing agreements with providers in network allegedly preventing market entry by other brokers to compete for state contract; later prospective entrant and incumbent broker entered into acquisition agreement and submitted joint bid for state contract.
Missouri v. Cox Health Systems, No. 197-CC-3469, Green County Circuit Court (1997)
Hospital system agreed to provide patients with listing of all available home health care providers upon discharge of patients, rather than only their own home health care agency
FTC and Puerto Rico v. College of Physician-Surgeons of Puerto Rico, No. 971 0011(D.P.R. Oct. 2. 1997)
Puerto Rico College of Physician surgeons sought to act on behalf of all Puerto Rico doctors to raise prices paid by the state for indigent care, and called for a strike which resulted in increaed hospital costs for consumers.
Pennsylvania v. J.J.D. Urethane
Defendant pleaded guilty to federal bid-rigging on roofing contracts for Pennsylvania school districts, state filed civil suit to recover damages.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC et al., No. 04-C-254M (Cir. Ct. Marshall Cty. 2004)
Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit and consent order to settle the lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, and SmithKline Beechham Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drugs, Paxil, Augmentin, and Relafen. Paxil is commonly prescribed for anxiety and depression, Augmentin is an antibiotic, and Relafen is a non-steroidal pain reliever. The State alleged that the defendants had unlawfully attempted to extend their patent protection for the three prescription drugs. After an investigation, the State reached an agreement with the defendants to settle the manner. Under the terms of the settlement, the State received $500,000.00.
Archer v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Roche Vitamins Inc., Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., LTD.; Eisai Co., Ltd; Takeda Chemical Industries, LTD., and Basf Corporation
State intervened in private class action suit following guilty pleas by vitamin manufacturers.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
