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
Utah v. Nuttall Bernina (Civ. No. 000903757 (3rd Dist. Utah, 2000)
State of Utah investigated Nuttall Bernina and Dave’s Bernina, alleging market allocation, price fixing and bid-rigging in sales of Bernina sewing machines to school districts in Salt Lake and Utah counties.
New Hampshire v.Simon Property Group, Inc., Merrimack Cty Super. Ct. 2005
State alleged that defendant compaines conspired to bar the entry of a competing jeweler in the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, NH
California v. American Rotary Broom, No. GIC 853579 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 2005)
Street sweeping brush manufacturers allegedly set up a territorial allocation scheme and engaged in bid-rigging and solicitation to engage in bid-rigging.
California v. Nationwide Wire & Brush, No. 05AS03942 (Ca. Super. Ct. Sept. 2005)
Street sweeping brush manufacturers allegedly set up a territorial allocation scheme and engaged in bid-rigging and solicitation to engage in bid-rigging.
Washington v. Herff Jones, et. al
The defendants were competitors selling yearbooks to schools throughout Washington. The defendants conspired to set prices and allocate the market for yearbooks in Washington. A complaint requesting injunctive relief and restitution was filed on behalf of Washington consumers. A Consent Decree was filed providing consumer restitution, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
Maine v. Bridgton Hospital, MMC, No. CV-00-87 (Kennebec Super. Ct. 2000)
Hospital advertised in another hospital’s market, but stopped after complants by first hospital. Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement reached with hospitals.
Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Wells Dairy, Inc., No. CE00038663 IA Dist. Ct. Polk Cty.1999)
Bid-rigging scheme for school milk contracts
Connecticut v. American Medical Response, Inc., No. CV-99-589962-S (CT Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1999)
Plaintiff state investigated ambulance service after mergers gave it significant market power in state. Settlement required divestiture of 30 licenses, 20 ambulances, and rights to several primary service areas or PSAs.
District of Columbia v. CVS Corporation et al. (not reported)
The District of Columbia sought injunctive relief, alleging that CVS illegally acquired market power when it purchased Anchor Pharmacy’s customer prescription lists (as well as certain other assets) and secured Anchor’s agreement to exit the market. The District also alleged that, by virtue of the acquisition, CVS monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the local pharmacy market.
