In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, 2001-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) & 73,150
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief against the three major contact lens makers and the American Optometric Association. The States alleged that defendants conspired to cut mail order companies and pharmacies out of the market for replacement contact lenses.
Maryland et al v. Mitsubishi Electronics America; 1992-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶69,743 (D. Md. 1992)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. (MELA) conspired with its dealers to set or maintain the resale price of its electronics equipment. In the settlement with Plaintiff States, MELA was enjoined from engaging in the alleged conduct and agreed to pay $6 million dollars for administrative costs and to reimburse qualified buyers.
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.
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.
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.
California, et al., v. Chevron Corporation and Texaco, Inc. No. 01-07746 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2001)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Chevron Corporation (Chevron) and Texaco, Inc. (Texaco) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in the markets for refining, wholesaling, and retailing of gasoline and other motor vehicles; aviation gasoline and jet fuel; and California crude oil.
Florida, et al. v. Nine West Group, Inc. and John Doe, 1-500, 80 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nine West Group (Nine West) conspired with unnamed dealers to set the minimum resale price at
which retailers were permitted to sell women’s dress shoes to customers.
Arizona v. M.D. Optical Co., 1986-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,346 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1986)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, M.D. Optical Co. established bylaws that set the prices for which ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians sold their goods and provided their services.
