-
Current Cases in which the Firm has 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. Presently, a class has been certified in this action.
- 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 $7,000,000.
- 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. Partial settlements in this matter exceed $82,000,000.
- In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1543 (D. Mass.), currently pending before the Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This is 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 alleges that the principal manufacturers of this product conspired to fix, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially inflated levels. This litigation follows 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.
- In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 99-4311)(D.N.J.), currently pending before the Honorable William H. Walls of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This is 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.
-
In addition, the Firm is currently serving as plaintiffs' co-counsel in the following cases:
- Dambrosio v. Comcast Corp., Civil Action No. 03-6604 (E.D.Pa.), currently pending before the Honorable John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Counsel in antitrust action against Comcast Corp., a major owner and operator of multiple cable television systems for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Complaint alleges that Comcast imposed horizontal market restraints by entering into and implementing agreements with competitors to exchange or swap their respective cable television assets, including subscribers and willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power within the Philadelphia Cluster thereby resulting in cable subscribers paying supra competitive rates for cable television access.
- Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group, L.P. (C.D. Cal.), currently pending before the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of hospitals and other purchasers of pulse oximetry products alleging monopolization of the market for pulse oximetry products.
- In re Urethane Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.1616. Counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of Urethane Chemicals, 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 Urethane Chemicals 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 Urethane Chemicals.
- In Re Parcel Tanker Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:04CV00317 (D. Conn.), pending before the Honorable Alfred V. Covello of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This is an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of parcel tanker shipping services alleging that the world's principal tanker shipping companies colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels and divide markets. 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.
- Linens of Europe, Inc. v. Best Metropolitan Towel and Linen Supply, Inc., et al., 03Civ. 9612 (S.D.N.Y.), pending before the Honorable Gerald E. Lynch of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This is 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.
- In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (FSH) A number of class actions filed against various insurer and broker defendants have been consolidated into two actions currently pending before the Honorable Faith S. Hochberg in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey - In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (FSH) (concerning the brokering of commercial insurance) and In re Employee Benefits Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 05-1079 (FSH) (concerning the brokering of employee benefits insurance). Discovery has been proceeding in both actions. Class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law arising out of (i) practices by which certain insurers provided quotations to policyholders and prospective policyholders through certain brokers in connection with the placement and renewal of insurance contracts and (ii) contracts, agreements, arrangements and understandings about the payment of commissions that are contingent upon, among other things, a broker placing a particular number of policies or dollar value of premium with the insurer.
- In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-md-1775 (CBA)(VVP), presently pending before the Honorable Carol B. Amon, of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This matter is pending on behalf of companies that used the airfreight shipping services of one or more of well over a dozen major international airlines, including British Airways, Air France-KLM, Lufthansa, SAS Group and United Airlines. These airlines, and others, are currently under investigation for unlawful cartel behavior, relating to inflated airfreight surcharges, in regions including the U.S., the E.C., Canada, Switzerland, and Korea. This action seeks to recover the overcharges paid by purchasers of air cargo shipping services that resulted from the airlines' conspiracy to impose these coordinated, inflated surcharges on their air cargo shipping customers, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
- In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1793 (N.D.Cal.), presently pending before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This antitrust class action seeks damages on behalf of all individuals who have been victimized by alleged price fixing on passenger tickets, including fuel surcharges included with said tickets, on long haul flights in and out of London. This litigation follows an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the United Kingdom's Office of Fair Trading into certain surcharges imposed by British Airways PLC and Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited. The alleged unlawful activity harmed those persons who purchased one-way or round trip tickets for flights primarily through London's Heathrow airport.
