Antitrust

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP has established a significant antitrust practice.  Anti-competitive behavior interferes with the operation of economic markets.  The prevalence of price-fixing and market-allocation cases has increased at both the national and international levels.  As government criminal investigations increase, civil litigation increasingly becomes important as a supplement to redress such misconduct.

The Firm’s Antitrust Practice Group focuses upon representing individuals and entities who have been victimized by unlawful monopolization, price-fixing, market allocation, and other anti-competitive conduct.  The Firm has prosecuted significant antitrust cases and has helped individuals and businesses recover billions of dollars.  Prosecuting civil antitrust cases under federal and state laws throughout the country, the Firm’s Antitrust Practice Group represents consumers, businesses, and Health and Welfare Funds and seeks injunctive relief and damages for violations of antitrust laws.  The Firm has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous multi-district litigation antitrust cases and has won substantial settlements for plaintiffs in such cases.  For instance, the Firm filed the initial landmark antitrust lawsuit against all of the major NASDAQ market makers and served on Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Executive Committee in In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, which recovered $900 million for investors. 

 

The Firm and the Firm’s lawyers’ major cases include:

  • Sullivan v. DB Investments, in which the Firm served on the Executive Committee.  De Beers had exploited its market dominance to inflate the price of rough diamonds and inflated the price of diamonds down the line.  De Beers suffered a default judgment and then negotiated with Plaintiff’s Counsel to reach a settlement of $295,000,000. 
  • In re Korean Airlines Antitrust Litig. (MDL 1891 C.D. Cal.), in which the Firm served as Lead Counsel for a class of purchasers of trans-pacific airline tickets to Korea.  The case settled for $65 million.
  • In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Litig. (MDL 1566 D. Nev.) ($25 Million settlement).
  • In re Playmobil Products Antitrust Litig. (95-cv-2896 E.D.N.Y.) (attorneys at the Firm were Lead Counsel in this case involving retail price maintenance agreements violating the Sherman Act).
  • In re Disposable Contact Lens Litig. (BC113271 Cal.) (attorneys at the Firm represented a class of purchasers of disposable contact lenses in California and obtained a reversal in the appellate court of a denial of class certification).
  • In re Time Warner Antitrust Litig. (09-cv-7747 S.D.N.Y.) (attorneys at the Firm were Co-Lead Counsel in this case involving illegal tying of the products).

 

Currently, the Firm has Lead or Committee roles in many federal lawsuits prosecuted by plaintiffs seeking damages for antitrust violations in major industries, including:

  • In re Korean Ramen Noodles Antitrust Litig. (13-4115 N.D. Cal.), in which the Firm is Co-Lead Counsel for a class of direct purchasers.
  • In re Photochromatic Lens Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2173 M.D. Fla.), in which the Firm is Co-Lead for a class of indirect purchasers.
  • In re Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig. (11-009 D. Del.), in which the Firm is Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers of truck transmissions from Eaton Corp.
  • In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2186 D. Idaho), in which the Firm is Co-Lead counsel for indirect purchasers of potatoes.
  • In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2420 N.D. Cal.), in which the Firm is on plaintiffs steering committee.

 

The Firm currently also has a major role in:

  • In re Wire Harness Antitrust Litig. (12-md-02311 E.D. Mich.) (a price-fixing action involving purchasers of wire harnesses).
  • In re Heating Control Panel Antitrust Litig. (12-md-02311 E.D. Mich.) (a price-fixing action involving purchasers of heating control panels).
  • Kleen Products v. Packaging Corp. of Amer. (10-cv-05711 N.D. Ill.) (a price-fixing action involving direct purchasers of containerboard).
  • In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2496 N.D. Cal.) (a price-fixing action involving direct purchasers of Cathode ray tubes).
  • In re Instrument Panel Clusters Antitrust Litig. (12-md-02311 E.D. Mich.) (a price-fixing action involving purchasers of instrument panel clusters).

 

In addition to the foregoing, the Firm also represents clients in the following ongoing cases:

  • In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Litig. (MDL 1720 E.D.N.Y)
  • In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2143 N.D. Cal.)
  • In re Apple I-Pod Antitrust Litig. (05-cv-37 N.D. Cal.)
  • In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig. (11-MD-02221 E.D.N.Y.)

 

Benchmark Manipulation Litigation

Benchmark Manipulation cases often concern legal actions founded upon violations of both the Antitrust and the Commodities laws.  The Firm has taken an active role in the bench-mark manipulation cases, and is representing a class of purchasers of preferred securities in LIBOR Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2262 S.D.N.Y.); is one of the counsel in the Euribor Manipulation case, Sullivan v. Barclays LLC (13-2811 S.D.N.Y.); and is working closely with lead counsel in In re: North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litig. (13-md-2475 S.D.N.Y.).

The Firm also represents clients in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Litigation (13-7789 S.D.N.Y.); In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation (13 MD 2481); and In re Commodity Exchange, Inc. Gold Futures and Options Trading Litig.  (MDL 2548).

 

Pay For Delay Litigation

Pay for Delay Litigation is a subset of the firm’s antitrust practice.  The Firm represents Union Health and Welfare Benefit Funds (HWBF) which are third party payors which pay all or part of the price of pharmaceutical drugs on behalf of their members.  If the HWBF pays all or part of the cost of a drug for its union members, the HWBF has been financially damaged as a result of the brand drug manufacturer keeping an FDA approved generic off the market.

Brand-named drugs cost significantly more than generic drugs, but the manufacturers of the brand named drugs have a legal monopoly as long as the patent for the drug is in force.  Over the last few years, the drug manufacturers have concocted schemes to keep generic drugs off of the market in order to have their drug sold as the sole marketed drug.  This suppression of generic drugs has been the subject of a number of lawsuits asserting facts demonstrating that a particular generic drug should have been allowed on the market and alleging the presence of an illegal monopoly.

The Firm is active in cases involving anti-competitive schemes to keep generic drugs off the market.  Currently the Firm is on the executive committee in In Re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litig. (1:13-cv-09244 S.D.N.Y. ), and represents HWBF clients in In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig. (13-cv-2460 E.D. Pa.); In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2516 D. Conn.); In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig. (MDL 14-md-2521); and In re Solodyn Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2503).  

The Firm also represents consumer end users in In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2332 D.N.J.) and pharmacy class members in In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig. (MDL 2343 E.D. Tenn.).