Examples of Our Achievements 1. Service as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel The antitrust cases in which Mr. Bolognese has served in a leadership role include: In re Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) Antitrust Litigation, 2:06-md-01768 (E.D. Pa.), currently pending before the Honorable Timothy Savage of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Interim co-lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of methyl methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), alleging that the principal manufacturers of these products conspired to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, and/or to allocate customers for the sale of these products in the United States. This litigation follows investigations carried out by European Union competition authorities into possible price-fixing and/or market and customer allocation schemes with respect to these products. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-666 (E.D. Pa.), currently pending before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Interim co-lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and its downstream products sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate, alleging that the principal manufacturers of these products conspired to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, and/or to allocate customers for the sale of these products in the United States. This litigation follows investigations carried out by United States Department of Justice into possible price-fixing and/or market and customer allocation schemes with respect to hydrogen peroxide. Settlements have been reached with four of six defendant groups totaling over $87 million. In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1542 (D. Conn.), currently pending before the Honorable Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Co-lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of EPDM, the third largest synthetic rubber consumed worldwide, alleging that the principal manufacturers of this product conspired to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, and/or to allocate customers for the sale of EPDM in the United States. This litigation follows investigations carried out by United States, Canadian and European Union competition authorities into possible price-fixing and/or market and customer allocation schemes with respect to EPDM. Settlements have been reached with four of six defendant groups totaling over $81 million. In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litigation, 3:05-MD-01642 (D. Conn.), before the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Co-lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of Polychloroprene ("CR"), a synthetic rubber product, alleging that global manufacturers of this product conspired to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, and/or to allocate customers for the sale of CR in the United States and globally. This litigation follows investigations carried out by United States, Canadian and European Union competition authorities into possible price-fixing and/or market and customer allocation schemes with respect to CR. Settlements totaling over $15 million were approved by the Court in the Fall of 2006. Alco Industries, Inc. v. DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, Case No. 1:04 CV 00588 (D.D.C.), before the Honorable Henry H. Kennedy of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Co-lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of Polychloroprene ("CR"), a synthetic rubber product, alleging that Dow DuPont Elastomers, LLC, conspired with other global manufacturers of this product to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, and/or to allocate customers for the sale of CR in the United States and globally. This litigation follows investigations carried out by United States, Canadian and European Union competition authorities into possible price-fixing and/or market and customer allocation schemes with respect to CR. A settlement of $36 million was approved without objection by Judge Kennedy in November 2004. In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 99-431 (AMW) (D.N.J.), pending first before the Honorable Alfred M. Wolin, and upon Judge Wolin's retirement from the Bench, the Honorable William Walls, of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of persons who purchased and leased new Mercedes-Benz automobiles in the states of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, alleging that Mercedes-Benz and its authorized dealers in that region colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. The last of several settlements totaling over $17 million was approved by the Court in March of 2008. In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation, 1:04 MDL No. 1622 (M.D.N.C.), currently pending before the Honorable James A. Beaty, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Co-lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of cotton yarns, alleging that the principal manufacturers of this product conspired to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, and/or to allocate customers for the sale of cotton yarns in the United States. This litigation follows investigations carried out by United States Department of Justice into possible price-fixing and/or market and customer allocation schemes with respect to Cotton Yarns. Partial settlements in this matter exceed $7.8 million. In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1200, Master File No. 97-550 (W.D. Pa.), before the Honorable Donald E. Ziegler, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of flat glass products alleging that the principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. The case was settled for over $120 million. In re Residential Doors Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 94-CV-3744, MDL No. 1039 (E.D. Pa.), before the Honorable Raymond J. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of residential doors alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $14 million. In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 95-1092-C-95-2963 (FMS) (N.D. Cal.), before the Honorable Fern L. Smith of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of citric acid and other food additive products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $80 million. Capitol Sign Company, Inc. v. Alliance Metals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 95-CV-6557 (LHP), before the Honorable Louis H. Pollack of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of painted aluminum products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $4 million. In re New York Beer Distribution Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. CV-86-2400 (E.D.N.Y.), before the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of retailers and distributors of beer in the State of New York that major breweries colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division of the New York State Attorney General's Office. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $14 million. In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075 (N.D. Ga.), pending before the Honorable Harold L. Murphy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of polypropylene carpet products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $50 million. In re Plastic Cutlery Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 96-728 (E.D. Pa.), before the Honorable Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of plastic cutlery products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $3 million. In re Metal Building Insulation Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. H-96-3490 (S.D. Tex.), before the Honorable Nancy F. Atlas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of metal building insulation products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlements of over $1 million. In re Plastic Tableware Antitrust Litigation, Master File No 94-CV-3564 (E.D. Pa.), before the Honorable Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of plastic tableware products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $2 million. Jerry Enterprises of Gloucester County, Inc. v. Allied Beverage Group, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 96-2347 (D.N.J.) (New Jersey Liquor Antitrust Litigation), before the Honorable Steven Orlovsky of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of retailers and distributors of distilled alcoholic beverages in the State of New Jersey. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $3 million.   2. Service as Discovery Chair or Co-Discovery Chair In addition, Mr. Bolognese served as Co-Chair of Discovery, directing the pretrial discovery process (document review, depositions, etc.) on behalf of all plaintiffs' counsel, in: In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 99-0197 (D.D.C.), before the Honorable Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of vitamins and vitamin bi-products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlements of over $1 billion. In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1543 (D. Mass.), before the Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of carbon black, a manufactured compound that is used as an ingredient or component in the manufacture of tires, rubber hoses, plastics, inks, and other products. This action alleged that the principal manufacturers of this product conspired to fix, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation followed a joint investigation carried out by the United States Department of Justice and the European Union into possible price-fixing with respect to the manufacture and sale of carbon black. The case was settled for over $20 million.   3. Service as Plaintiffs' Co-Counsel In addition, Mr. Bolognese performed services as plaintiffs' co-counsel in the following cases: In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. C-03-1496 (N.D. Cal.), before the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of chemicals used in the manufacture of various rubber products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of rubber chemicals colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice as well as Canadian and European antitrust authorities. Successful prosecution of this matter has resulted in settlements exceeding $250 million. Fears, et al. v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., et al., 02-CV-4911 (S.D.N.Y.), before the Honorable Harold Baer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of models who were under written or oral contract with the major modeling agencies in the New York market. This action alleged that the major New York modeling agencies conspired, among other things, to fix the commission rates charged to models for the procurement of work. Successful prosecution of this matter has resulted in settlements exceeding $23 million. In re Organic Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, (D.D.C.), pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of organic peroxide, a specialty chemical used in the manufacture and production of plastic and rubber products, alleging that the principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The case was settled for over $30 million. In re First Data Bank Antitrust Litigation, (D.D.C.), before the Honorable Thomas Penfield Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of integratable electronic drug information databases used by pharmacies, hospitals and other medical care providers, alleging that the principal manufacturer of such products monopolized the market, resulting in artificially inflated, supra-competitive prices for the product. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related investigation and enforcement action instituted against the manufacturer by the United States Federal Trade Commission. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of $26 million. Linens of Europe, Inc. v. Best Metropolitan Towel and Linen Supply, Inc., et al., 03 Civ. 9612 (S.D.N.Y.), before the Honorable Gerald E. Lynch of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of linens and linen services in New York alleging that the main suppliers of linens and linen services to the New York restaurant industry colluded to fix prices of their products and services at artificially inflated levels. Successful prosecution of this matter resulted in settlements exceeding $6 million in cash and $3 million in vouchers. Industrial Graphite Products, Inc. v. Carbone of America Industries Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 00-1857 (E.D. Pa.), before the Honorable John P. Fullam of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of isostatic graphite products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. Successful prosecution of this matter resulted in settlements exceeding $11 million. In re Monosodium Gluconate Antitrust Litigation, (D. Minn), before Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of monosodium gluconate and other related food additive products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. Successful prosecution of this matter has resulted in settlements exceeding $80 million. In re Potassium Sorbate Antitrust Litigation, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This was an action brought on behalf of purchasers of potassium sorbate and other related food additive products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $90 million. In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Ind.), before the Honorable Sarah Jane Barker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of bromine and bromine compounds alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. Successful prosecution of this matter has resulted in settlements exceeding $9 million. In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 00 Civ. 0648 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers and sellers of items purchased and sold through Christies and Sotheby's, the world's largest auction houses, alleging that such auction houses colluded to fix the commissions they charge to purchasers and sellers at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $400 million. In re Commercial Tissue Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1189 (N.D. Fla.), before the Honorable Maurice Paul of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of retailers and distributors of commercial tissue products, alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related civil action instituted by the Attorney General of the State of Florida. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $50 million. In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.), before the Honorable Barrington Parker of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of consumers who purchased shoes manufactured by Nine West Corporation, alleging that Nine West and other manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related civil action instituted by the United States Federal Trade Commission. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $20 million. In re Magnetic Audio Tapes Antitrust Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.), pending before the Honorable Lawrence J. McKenna of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of magnetic audio tapes from the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix the prices of such products at artificially inflated levels. This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $ 10 million. In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 1:90-CV-2485 (N.D. Ga.), before the Honorable Marvin Shoob of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of airline tickets from several major airlines, alleging that such airlines colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement valued at several hundred million dollars. In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:92-CV-073-D-O (N.D. Miss.), before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of commercial purchasers of catfish from several major catfish farmers, alleging that such farmers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement valued at over $20 million. In re Waste Haulers' Antitrust Litigation, Master File No 87-3717 (E.D. Pa.), before the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of businesses nationwide which purchased waste disposal services from the two leading national providers of such services, alleging that such providers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $25 million. In re Chlorine and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 86-5428 (E.D. Pa.), before the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of businesses nationwide which purchased chlorine and caustic soda products, alleging that such providers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $25 million. In re Toys "R" Us, Inc. Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1211 (E.D.N.Y.), before the Honorable Nina Gershon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This action was brought on behalf of persons who purchased toys from a major national toy retailers, alleging that the retailer colluded with toy manufacturers to restrict competition in the sale of toys to consumers. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related civil investigation and case instituted by the United States Federal Trade Commission. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement valued at over $56 million in cash and products. In re D.C. Soft Drinks Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 86-2974 (D.D.C.), before the Honorable Stanley Sporkin of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This was an antitrust action brought on behalf of retailers and distributors of soda in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, alleging that major soda bottlers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation was brought in the wake of a related criminal investigation and prosecution instituted by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $8 million.

Attorneys | Practice Areas | Experience | Recognition | Our Record | Contact Us © 2008 Bolognese & Associates, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Site Map | Disclaimer