Antitrust litigation involves the examination of a company’s business practices in order to determine if business conduct is in agreement with the goals of federal antitrust laws. Federal antitrust laws prohibit the establishment of oppressive market forces that abolish freedom of competition in the marketplace. Anti-competitive business practices include, for example, mergers that have the potential for influencing the loss of healthy and fair marketplace competition and unjust control and monopolizing direction over market prices. If a corporation’s business behavior is suspected of being in violation of a federal antitrust law, successful antitrust litigation can result in the corporation being subject to the payment of hefty fines and/or a jail sentence.
Antitrust legislation has been extant in the United States since 1890 with the introduction of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The exploitative and restraining economic environment in the United States in the late nineteenth century, marked by a trend towards the formation of monopolies, resulted in the issuance of government regulation, which ultimately came in the form of a piece of regulatory legislation. It is through a profound understanding of federal and international antitrust laws that modern antitrust litigation experts file criminal suits against corporations with suspect business practices.
Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1350. CD&L was selected to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in this Multi-District litigation involving alleged price fixing by Microsoft. As Co-Lead Counsel, CD&L was responsible for coordinating and managing over 150 separate antitrust suits brought against the computer operating system manufacturer throughout the United States. The case was litigated before Judge Frederick Motz in the District Court for the District of Maryland.
K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1419. CD&L was selected as Co-Lead Counsel in a case alleging that Schering-Plough Corporation, manufacturer of the brand name prescription drug “K-Dur,” entered into illegal agreements with two manufacturers of generic versions of the drug to keep the generic products off of the market, thereby injuring consumers and others who were forced to pay artificially inflated prices for the brand name drug. The case was litigated in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey.
Buspirone Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1410. CD&L served on the Executive Committee of this Multi-District litigation case involving allegations of antitrust violations by the manufacturer of a popular brand-name anti-anxiety medication. The case was settled, on behalf of consumers and third party payors (so-called “indirect purchasers”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for over $90 million.
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1663. CD&L is serving as Class Counsel in this Multi-District litigation regarding allegedly widespread illegal conduct in the payment of contingent commissions by numerous insurance brokers and insurance companies. The case is pending in the District of New Jersey.
Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1093. CD&L was selected to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Counsel Steering Committee of this Multi-District litigation case regarding price fixing against several major commercial explosive manufacturers. CD&L filed the first case of this nature and many subsequent similar suits followed. The case settled for over $77 million.
Vitamin Price Fixing Litigation
MDL No. 1285. CD&L served as Class Counsel in this Multi-District litigation regarding price fixing against several major vitamin manufacturers. The litigation resulted in settlements in excess of $1 billion on behalf of the class.
Bromine Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1310. CD&L served on the Executive Committee of this Multi-District case regarding alleged price fixing against the manufacturers of Bromine. The case was settled in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
*Carey Danis & Lowe has settled many additional cases for their clients. Unfortunately, this information cannot be made public due to confidentiality clauses and the sensitive nature of personal cases. We work for our clients. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Satisfaction is our goal.