Cases

The following cases are active settlements that we are seeking recoveries from on behalf of our clients.

Case Description Deadline
Air Cargo Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Airfreight Shipping Services by, among other things, coordinating surcharges (such as fuel and security surcharges) and by agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of surcharges. They claim that purchasers paid more for Airfreight Shipping Services than they otherwise would have paid. TBD
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of CRTs and the CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and products. The complaint describes how the Defendants and coconspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them. December 10, 2015
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Class action Settlements have been reached involving Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”), a display device that was sold by itself or as the main components in TVs and computer monitors. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRTs causing consumers to pay more for CRT Products such as Televisions and Computer Monitors. December 7, 2015
Containerboard Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant companies unlawfully conspired to fix, raise or maintain the prices of Containerboard Products purchased in the United States. The lawsuit claims that any person or entity that purchased Containerboard Products directly from any Defendant company during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market. TBD
Credit Default Swaps Settlement Participants in the CDS market engaged in anticompetitive acts that affected the price of CDS in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The lawsuit also alleges that Defendants were unjustly enriched under common law by their anticompetitive acts. United States District Court Southern District of New York RE: CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case 13 MD 2476 May 27, 2016
Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs claim violations of federal antitrust laws regarding the sale of DRAM. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant DRAM manufacturers conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of DRAM sold in the United States. According to class action lawsuits, Plaintiffs believe these Defendants’ activities resulted in overcharges to customers who purchased DRAM indirectly from the named Defendant manufacturers. August 1, 2014
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Settlement The case is known as In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437 and 13-MD-2437. The individuals and entities who are named in the lawsuit are called the Plaintiffs and are also the TIN and USG Settlement Class Representatives. Starting in December 2012, indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard filed lawsuits claiming that the Defendants conspired, in violation of the federal antitrust laws, to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the price of gypsum wallboard and, to help effectuate this price-fixing conspiracy, abolish the industry’s long-standing practice of limiting price increases for the duration of a construction project through the use of "job quotes". TBD
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Manufacturers of polyurethane foam were accused of colluding to fix prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane products in the US and Europe. Polyurethane foam is used for cushioning and insulation in residential and commercial furnishing, bedding, flooring, automotive interiors, carpet underlay and in many industrial, packaging and technical applications. In the US, the direct purchasers accuse the defendants of conspiring from January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2010 to fix the price of polyurethane foam. In April 2013 Vitafoam and Vitafoam Products Canada agreed to pay over $10 million to claimants. January 26, 2015
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Manufacturers of polyurethane foam were accused of colluding to fix prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane foam products. Polyurethane foam is used for cushioning and insulation in residential and commercial furnishing, bedding and flooring. In April 2013 Vitafoam and Vitafoam Products Canada agreed to pay over $10 million to claimants. A previous $148 million settlement for direct purchasers was approved and had a filing deadline of January 26, 2015. February 29, 2016
Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (see below) conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (“FX”) market in violation of the Sherman Act.  Nine defendants have so far agreed to pay over $2 billion in settlements. The plaintiffs claim that the bank employees colluded to trade in ways that would create favorable fixed rates and manipulate the global foreign exchange market. TBD
Freight Forwarders Settlement Direct purchasers of freight forwarding services in the United States claim that the major global freight forwarding companies conspired to fix various prices and surcharges for freight forwarding services in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws. As a result, purchasers paid more for freight forwarding Services than they otherwise would have paid. The first round of the freight forwarder settlements totaled $105,611,864, and August 24, 2015 was the deadline to file claims. The second round of the Freight Forwarders Settlement is still open. March 31, 2016
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs in the Class Action allege that Becton Dickinson and Company ("BD") violated federal antitrust laws with respect to the sale of BD Hypodermic Products. The Lawsuit claims that BD engaged in several forms of anticompetitive practices, including: (1) imposing market share purchase requirements on hospitals or other healthcare entities, (2) bundling its goods for exclusionary purposes, (3) conspiring with Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) for the purpose of imposing exclusionary contracts, and (4) conspiring with other manufacturers to impose rebate penalties on purchasers relating to a bundle of products. The Lawsuit claims that by engaging in this conduct, Defendant was able to improperly maintain a monopoly in the markets in which BD Hypodermic Products are sold, causing direct purchasers of BD Hypodermic Products to pay artificially inflated prices for BD Hypodermic Products. TBD
Lithium Ion Battery Products Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (see below) conspired to fix, raise and maintain prices of Lithium Ion Battery Products sold in the United States. Lithium Ion Batteries are cylindrical, prismatic, or polymer batteries that are rechargeable and use lithium ion technology. Lithium ion batteries are found in laptop, notebook and tablet computers, cellular phones, smart phones, digital audio players, digital cameras and camcorders, mobile wireless handsets, power tools and other consumer electronics. TBD
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation Plaintiffs allege that, between January 1, 2004 and the present, Defendants Visa, MasterCard and several banks including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup conspired to artificially inflate the prices of interchange fees that merchants' acquiring banks pay to customers' issuing banks in a credit or debit card transaction. Since the interchange fees are inflated, the discount fees merchants pay to accept card payments are in turn artificially high, and various rules prevent merchants from challenging the inflated fees. TBD
Optical Disk Drive Settlement Plaintiffs claim that Defendants and co-conspirators unlawfully conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of ODDs. Plaintiffs claim that direct purchasers from the Defendants of computers, video game consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders, and Blu-Ray players/recorders that contain ODDs may recover for the effect that the ODD conspiracy had on the prices of ODD Devices. Plaintiffs claim that the conspiracy required direct purchasers to pay more for ODDs and ODD Devices. June 22, 2015
Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Direct Purchaser Settlement Plaintiffs claim that, from 2003 through 2008, the Defendant companies unlawfully assessed a rail freight surcharge applied as a percentage of the base rate for freight transport services purchased in the United States. The fuel surcharge was either stand-alone, or included in the base rate of the freight service. Plaintiffs claim that any person or entity that purchased Rail Freight directly from any Defendant company during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market. TBD
Southeast Dairy Class Action Settlements The lawsuit claims that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators unlawfully agreed and conspired to monopolize, to fix prices at suppressed levels, and to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale, and purchase of raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk Market Orders 5 and 7 ("Southeast"). This includes Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and parts of Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. May 1, 2012
TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs allege that, from at least January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, defendants operated a cartel, the purpose of which was to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs) and products incorporating TFT-LCDs. TFT LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. The plaintiffs, who directly purchased from a defendant the TFT-LCDs or the products containing them, allege the defendants fixed the prices of the TFT-LCDs, causing the plaintiffs to pay more than they should have. April 5, 2012
TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Products Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement Plaintiffs allege that, from at least January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, defendants operated a cartel, the purpose of which was to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs) and products incorporating TFT-LCDs. TFT LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. The plaintiffs, who directly purchased from a defendant the TFT-LCDs or the products containing them, allege the defendants fixed the prices of the TFT-LCDs, causing the plaintiffs to pay more than they should have. TBD

 

Questions?

Telephone: (888) 605-7617

Send us an email