Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-191.01

Procedure upon recovery of money for antitrust violations

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. When money is recovered for the state, its agencies, its departments, commissions or subdivisions by the attorney general as a result of the enforcement of either state or federal statutes pertaining to antitrust, restraint of trade, or price-fixing activities or conspiracies, whether by final judgment, settlement or otherwise, the funds shall be deposited in the fund created in section 41-191.02.

B. After the payment of any attorney's fee provided for by subsection D of section 41-191 and the crediting to the revolving fund established by section 41-191.02 of an amount equal to ten per cent of the monies so deposited or the actual costs and expenses expended to recover the particular money so deposited, whichever is greater, the remainder of the recovery shall be deposited in the general fund of the state, unless the recovery or a portion thereof, was on behalf of a special or trust fund, in which event the money should be deposited in such special or trust fund or unless the recovery was on behalf of a political subdivision of the state, in which event the remainder of the recovery shall be transmitted to the treasurer of such political subdivision for deposit in its general fund.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2003 · leading case: Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC (2003) ariz · cites it 4× “Moreover, in order to protect Arizona taxpayers who are the indirect purchasers of goods and services through public procurement contracts, those bidding on public contracts must assign to the state claims for overcharges resulting from antitrust violations.”
Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa (2003) ariz · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 41-191.01 to -.02(B) (1999). Yet despite having been notified repeatedly of antitrust settlements on behalf of indirect purchasers, the legislature has not acted to modify § 44-1408 since 1 Before Illinois Brick, six of the seven federal circuit courts ruling on…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.