Florida v. Barber Dairies, Inc. et al., No. 89-40019-MP (N.D. Fla. 1989)
Florida sought treble damages, investigative costs, attorneys fees, and permanent injunctive relief, alleging that defendant companies conspired to enter agreements with potential competitors to rig bids on Florida county school milk requirement contracts.
In re Carbon Dioxide Industry Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Fla. 1996) M.D.L. 940
The State of Florida sought treble damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against defendant carbon dioxide companies, alleging that since 1968, the companies engaged in a conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce by allocating customer contracts and/or rigging bids for the supply of carbon dioxide to governmental entities and other purchasers in Florida.
Florida v. Anchor Seven Federal Credit Union, et al.
Florida settled for damages and injunctive relief against defendant automobile dealers and credit unions, the state contended that dealers and credit unions had combined or conspired to restrain trade and competition for automobile financing, pricing, or stabilizing prices for protection packages offered in conjunction with automobile sales at off-site locations in Duval and Escambia Counties.
Florida v. Fort Walton Paint and Body Shop, No. 92-125CAA (1st Jud. Cir. Oskaloosa Cty. FL 1992)
Florida sought injunctive relief, civil penalties and reimbursement of investigative costs and attorney?s fees, alleging that defendant automobile repair shops conspired to restrain trade and competition for auto body repair services.
Florida v. Jones Chemicals, Inc., et al (M.D. FL, 1990); Florida v. Industrial Chemicals, et al (N.D. FL, 1990)
Florida filed complaints alleging that Defendants conspired to restrain trade by allocating contracts and groups of contracts to supply liquid chlorine.
New York v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc., 547 F.Supp 306 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 1982), 1982-83 Trade Cases P 65, 148, Docket No. 81 Civ. 1891,
Defendants overcharged for milk after entering into illegal price-fixing agreements between 1967 and 1981. The case settled for $6,100,000.
Utah v. Wool Cabin, (Case No. 2005-002-0365 (settlement agreement)
State investigated allegations that Cascade Yarns, Inc. was restricting trade by refusing to sell to a retailer accused by competing retailers of undercutting market prices.
Utah v. Black Sheep Wool Company(settlement agreement)
State investigated allegations that Cascade Yarns, Inc. was restricting trade by refusing to sell to a retailer accused by competing retailers of undercutting market prices.
Utah v. Cascade Yarns, Inc. (Civ. No. 050905940 (3d Dist. Utah 2005)
State investigated Cascade Yarns, Inc. in relation to allegations that Cascade was restricting trade by refusing to sell to a retailer accused by competing retailers of undercutting market prices.
Washington v. Becton Dickinson Corp. (settlement 1989)
University Of Washington sought bids for medical equipment from a variety of vendors. Those vendors all submitted proposals which included Becton Dickinson medical equipment. The highest bidder complained to Becton that VWR and others had submitted a bid discounting Becton equipment. Becton then requested that VWR (lowest bidder) and the other vendor?s either withdraw or increase the bid for Becton equipment to suggested retail prices.
