In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL-150; 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 69,925 (C.D. Cal. 1992)
In 1973, The States of Florida and Connecticut sued several named petroleum companies in each individual state’s federal court. The States alleged that the companies conspired to raise or stabilize prices for refined oil products and they continually engaged in the mutual exchange of pricing and price-related information. Further, the States alleged that the Defendants conspired to create an artificial scarcity of crude and refined oil and that the oil companies conspired not to compete in bidding on plaintiffs annual bulk sale petroleum supply contracts. California, Arizona, Washington and Oregon also sued
New Jersey v. Exxon Corp. No. 1:99CV03183 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 1999); Alaska v. Exxon Corp. No. A99-618-CV (D. Alaska, Nov. 30, 1999); Texas v. Exxon Corp. No. 3-99CV 2709-L (N.D. Texas, Dallas, Dec. 3, 1999); California v. Exxon
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between Exxon Corporation (Exxon) and Mobil Corporation (Mobil), alleging that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition would substantially lessen competition and/or tend to lessen competition in relevant markets in each of the States.
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 1361 (D. Me. 2002) MDL-1391; No. 00-CIV-5853 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y Aug. 8, 2000) (complaint)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant CD distributors unlawfully conspired to implement stringent minimum advertised price (MAP) policies in violation of antitrust laws.
California v. BP Amoco/p.l.c., 3:00-cv-00420-SI (N.D. Cal, Apr. 13, 2000); In the Matter of the British Petroleum Company and Amoco Corp. File No. 981-0345 1998 WL 910216
Plaintiff States, jointly with the Federal Trade Commission, sought to enjoin the merger between British Petroleum Company (BP) and Amoco Corporation (Amoco). It was alleged that the proposed merger would effectively reduce competition or create a monopoly in the sale of gasoline.
In re: Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.) (see also Ohio v. Bristol Myers Squibb
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) attempted to maintain an unlawful monopoly on buspirone hydrochloride, a medication used to treat generalized anxiety. In settling, BMS agreed to a stipulated injunction and to reimburse consumers and state and local public entities for overcharges. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlement, 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.
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.
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation 99-MD-1278 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2003), 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants entered into an unlawful agreement attempting to delay or prevent the marketing of less expensive generic alternatives to Cardizem CD, a brand name drug used to prevent heart attacks. The Plaintiff States settled for $80 million, the bulk of which was to be used to reimburse purchasers including consumers, insurance companies and other third-party payers for overcharges paid for Cardizem CD between 1998 and 2003.
Colorado, et al. v. Airline Tariff Pub. Co.; No. 1:90-CV-2485-MHS and MDL No. 861 (N.D. Georgia) (October 1994)
Settlement providing for discounted ticket prices for state and local government agency air travel reached between Plaintiff States and certain airlines over price-fixing scheme.
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.
