Skip to Content

Common Types of Antitrust Violations

We Take Action to Help Enforce Antitrust Laws

Practices that thwart competition hurt businesses and consumers, and ultimately our free-market economy. Antitrust legislation prohibits anticompetitive business activity, such as unlawful monopolization, price fixing, bid rigging, market allocation and other unfair trade practices. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has 25 years of experience handling sophisticated antitrust claims in state and federal courts nationwide. Our antitrust law firm represents consumers, businesses, and health and welfare funds in class action litigation and individual entities that opt out of the class or bring a direct action against the antitrust violator. Our firm has the resources and experience to litigate high-dollar, high-stakes claims.

We assume the risks and costs of litigation under our contingency arrangements. We are selective about our cases so we can give each one the time and attention required to reach a successful verdict or settlement. 

How an Antitrust Law Firm Can Help

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP represents plaintiffs who have been harmed by anticompetitive practices in direct action and class action lawsuits. We assist with claims involving:

  • Unlawful monopolization occurs when a company purposely acquires or maintains monopoly control in a given market. An unlawful monopoly is distinguished from a company’s natural acquisition of monopoly power because of its superior product or business acumen.
  • Price fixing occurs when competing companies agree on terms or practices that keep prices at an established level across competitors. This restraint on competition typically results in higher prices for consumers and other entities in the supply chain. These actions involve companies which collude on price and scheme to allocate the market.
  • Bid rigging involves undermining the bidding process to win a company or government contract by colluding with competitors. Companies may rig bids by agreeing to take turns submitting the winning proposal or by agreeing to award the losing bidder a subcontract.
  • Unfair trade practices are unlawful actions used to obtain business. An unfair trade practice might involve fraud, misrepresentation, bid rigging, price fixing, market allocation, false advertising or other deceptive practices.
  • Sherman antitrust actions are claims involving unreasonable restraint of trade. Our law firm often brings illegal monopoly and market manipulation claims under the Sherman Act on behalf of companies, institutions, and individuals who have been financially damaged. .
  • Indirect purchaser rules prohibit indirect purchasers from bringing federal antitrust claims. However, some scenarios give an indirect purchaser standing in a claim against the antitrust violator based upon state law claims.
  • Generic drug litigation includes a number of schemes that keep pharmaceutical prices high for patients. For example, two companies may agree to a price fixing arrangement or a company may accept compensation for withholding the competing drug from the market, also known as “pay for delay.”

Our Antitrust Law Firm Will Help You Recover for Anticompetitive Practices that Cost Your Company Financial Losses

If a company has engaged in anticompetitive practices, you may have standing to file a direct claim or join a class action lawsuit. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP can advise you on your rights and strategize the best means for recovery. To learn more, schedule a free consultation with the experienced attorneys at our antitrust law firm.

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