Louisiana v. Amgen, No. 08-0373 (Louisiana, Civ. Dist. Ct. for Parish of Orleans, 2009)
State parens patriae action, wholly under state law, alleging anticompetitive tying and pricing. The tying product was White Blood Cell Growth Factor, in which Amgen had a monopoly position, according to the complaint. The tied product was Red Blood Cell Growth Factor. Amgen’s product, Aranesp, competed with Procrit for this market. The complaint alleged that oncology clinics, which use these drugs, receive rebates on WBCGF purchases if they purchase above a certain amount of the RBCGF from Amgen. The case was removed to federal court, and the state filed a motion to remand, but the newly-elected Attorney General dismissed the case without prejudice before the motion was heard.
FTC and California ex rel. Brown v. Watson Pharmaceuticals No. CV-09-00598 (C.D. Cal Feb. 12, 2009)
Plaintiff State and the FTC challenged so-called “reverse payment” agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals (patent holder) and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceuticals and Paddock Laboratories that delayed the entry of a generic substitute for Androgel, a testosterone-replacement drug. State and the FTC alleged that Solvay, fearing the entry of lower-cost generic substitutes for Androgel, resolved patent litigation with the other three companies by making substantial payments to them, on the condition that they not enter the market with their generic version. the parties seek injunctive relief and fines of $2500 per violation under California antitrust law. Case was transferred to district court in Georgia and state did not re-file in Georgia, although the FTC did.
Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Gannett Co., Inc. (D. Ariz. 2009)
Two newspapers in Pima County sought to stop publishing one of the papers and share the profits on the other paper, pursuant to a change in their ongoing Joint Operating Agreement. Judge denied state’s request for TRO, on grounds that newspaper was a “failing firm.” State dismissed complaint.
In re Maine Pride Salmon, No. 93-10580 (Bankr. D. Maine 1993)
Challenge to proposed merger of salmon aquaculture compnay in bankruptcy.
New York v. Kraft General Foods, 862 F.Supp. 1030, 1993-1 Trade Cases P 70,284
Kraft acquired Nabisco’s ready-to-eat cereal assets for approximately 405 million dollars. The New York Attorney General’s Office brought suit to have the acquisition declared unlawful. The Attorney General’s Office argued that the acquisition would eliminate competition between Kraft and Nabisco and significantly reduced competition in the ready-to-eat cereal market. New York sought to have the acquisition declared unlawful. After trial, the claim was dismissed. The judge held the evidence was insufficient to show that the acquisition would substantially lessen competition
People of the State of California v Conti, BC 348077 (Ca. Super. Ct. 2006)
State alleged that defendants participated in a bid-rigging conspiracy designed to allocate bids for advertising on Internet search-engine Yahoo.
Idaho v. Daicel Chemical Co. et al., No. 30379 (Idaho 2005)
State filed suit on behalf of indirect purchasers after federal guilty pleas by sorbates manufacturers. Case dismissed on grounds that Idaho Competition Act which permitted recovery by indirect purchasers was not enacted until 2000 and did not permit retroactive application.
Utah v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. (Civ. No. 20910931 MI) (3rd Dis. Utah, 2002)
Defendant sorbate manufacturers were charged with collusion, price-fixing and market allocation
U.S. et al. v. EchoStar Communications, Corp., et al. No. 1:02CV02138 (D.D.C.)
Federal and State action to enjoin merger of two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) companies. The merging parties abandoned their merger agreement
Clark Oil & Refining Corp., et al v. Ashcroft; 639 S.W.2d 594; 1982 Mo. LEXIS 396; 1982-2 Trade Cas. (CCH)P64,921
In declaratory judgment action brought by oil company, Missouri Supreme Court held that Attorney General may bring parens patriae action under 15 U.S.C. § 15c pursuant to the authority conferred by Missouri law.
