Skip to Content

Our economic system is based upon competition. Anticompetitive practices create unfair advantages that can cause extensive damages to competing businesses and consumers. Antirust laws protect the vital competition that improves quality and reduces prices.

Established in 1988, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has the substantial resources and experience to handle complex, high-stakes antitrust claims.  We represent direct purchaser and indirect purchaser companies at all stages of the manufacturing and distribution chain that have sustained antitrust losses. GPM also represents health and welfare funds and end payer consumers, typically in class action litigation.

Our firm handles antitrust claims on contingency. We assume the risks of litigation and front the expenses of bringing a claim. Therefore, our interests are directly aligned with yours. Our antitrust attorneys are responsive to your needs while remaining steadfastly aggressive in pursuing your rights against a defendant who has engaged in antitrust practices.

How Antitrust Laws Protect Consumers and Businesses

The Sherman Act, passed in 1890, is the cornerstone of modern antitrust legislation. The Sherman Act prohibits unreasonable restraint of trade. What is “unreasonable” is specific to the facts of the case. However, price fixing, bid rigging and other harmful actions are per se unreasonable. Although our law firm handles civil claims under the Sherman Act, we are well-versed in the criminal prosecutions and penalties that may run parallel to your civil action.

Enacted in 1941, the Federal Trade Commission Act established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that enforces antitrust laws. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Because the laws overlap, we may bring claims under either or both the Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The 1941 Clayton Act and its amendments govern mergers that reduce competition and puts a notice requirement on companies that plan to enter into highly impactful mergers. In addition, the Clayton Act bans certain discriminatory transactions between merchants.  Litigants can pursue treble damages and injunctive relief in actions that violate the Clayton Act. 

Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits

Antitrust violations often harm multiple individuals, institutions and companies, making class action the most equitable means of achieving justice. Class actions are particularly important when consumers sustain relatively small individual damages that result in large cumulative damages across the class. For example, if a company’s actions cost you $100, bringing an individual antitrust claim would be cost-prohibitive. However, 10,000 other plaintiffs who sustained similar losses may have a viable class action claim for $1 million collectively. Consumers and competing business may also benefit from class action when the goal is to stop the offending company from engaging in anticompetitive activities.

We advise you whether your claim may be suitable for a class action. We may also help you join a class if the claim has already been filed.

Direct Action/Opt-Out Antitrust Claims

Institutions or companies with high damages may benefit from bringing a claim directly against an antitrust defendant. We fully evaluate your claim and advise on whether to opt out of a putative or certified class. Our strategies may include filing a direct action immediately or negotiating directly with the defendant upon opting out of a settlement class.

Contact an Antitrust Lawyer at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Have you sustained losses because of unreasonable or unfair competition? Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP will evaluate your claim and advise on the next steps to recover damages. Schedule a free consultation to discuss your claim with an experienced antitrust lawyer.

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials