Results and Notable Decisions Among the antitrust cases in which Mr. Bolognese and/or the Firm has served in a leadership role are: 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 close to $20,000,000 were approved in this matter. Alco Industries Inc. v. DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, Case No. 1:04 CV 00588 (D. D.C.), before the Honorable Nancy Mayer-Whittington of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Lead counsel in an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of Polychloroprene Rubber ("PCP"), 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 PCP 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 PCP. A partial settlement has been reached in this matter for over $33,000,000. In Re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. C-03-1496 (N.D. Cal.), pending before the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This is 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 $250,000,000. Fears, et al. v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., et al., 02-CV-4911 (S.D.N.Y.), currently pending before the Honorable Harold Baer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This is 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 alleges 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 $23,000,000. In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1200, Master File No. 97-550 (W.D.Pa.), currently pending before the Honorable Donald E. Ziegler, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This is 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. Settlements have been reached with three of the five defendants, totaling over $54 million. The litigation is proceeding against the two defendants who have not yet settled. In re Organic Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, (D.D.C.), currently pending before the Honorable Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This is 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. In re First Data Bank Antitrust Litigation, (D.D.C.), currently pending before the Honorable Thomas Penfield Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This is 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. 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). 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.). The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $14 million.   In addition, Mr. Bolognese has served as a principal discovery coordinator, 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.), currently pending before the Honorable Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District for the District of Columbia. This is 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. Settlements have been reached with many of the defendants, totaling over $1.05 billion. The litigation is proceeding against the remaining defendants who have not settled. 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.   In addition, Mr. Bolognese has performed services as plaintiffs' co-counsel in the following cases: In re Potassium Sorbate Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. CA.). This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $90 million. In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075 (N.D.Ga.). This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $50 million. In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 00 Civ. 0648 (LAK)(S.D.N.Y.). 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.). This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $50 million. In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.). This action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $20 million. In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Ill.). The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $750 million. In re Plastic Cutlery Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 96-728 (E.D.Pa.). 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.). 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.). 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). The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $3 million. In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 1:90-CV-2485 (N.D.Ga.). 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.). 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.). 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.). 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.). 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.). The civil class action resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $8 million. Industrial Graphite Products, Inc. v. Carbone of America Industries Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 00-1857 (E.D.Pa.)(Isostatic Graphite Antitrust Litigation). In re Monosodium Gluconate Antitrust Litigation, (D.Minn.). In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, (D.Md.). In re Magnetic Audio Tapes Antitrust Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.). In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Ind.).

Firm Profile | Results and Notable Decisions | View Case Summaries | Contact Information Class Action Litigation | Antitrust Litigation | Consumer Protection | Securities Law Our Attorneys :       Select Attorney » ⋅ Anthony J. Bolognese ⋅ Joshua H. Grabar ⋅ Joanna D. Buchanico ⋅ John G. Narkin