Antitrust & Intellectual Property

California Bail Bonds Antitrust Litigation

Bail bonds sign

Lieff Cabraser, together with Justice Catalyst, the National Consumer Law Center, Public Counsel, and Towards Justice, represent plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging that the prices of bail bonds in California have been unlawfully inflated by a price-fixing conspiracy. The suit alleged that “sureties”—the companies that back the bonds sold by retail bond agents—have orchestrated a default price of 10% of the bond amount, and have then worked to eliminate discounting that would otherwise have occurred if the market operated competitively. This first-of-its-kind case challenges the alleged conspiracy among sureties and bail agents to inflate bail bond prices.

The defendants include surety companies and certain bail agents operating in California, including Seaview Insurance, American Surety, Allegheny Casualty, International Fidelity, and several others.

According to the Complaint, bail bonds are sold by thousands of bail agents. The non-refundable premiums they charge on the bonds are ultimately controlled by a much smaller group of sureties, who underwrite those bonds, much like insurers. The sureties, in concert with bail agents, have allegedly engaged in a long-running anticompetitive conspiracy to keep bail bond premiums higher than they would be if the California bail-bonds market functioned competitively.

The plaintiff class is defined in the Complaint as: “All persons who, between February 24, 2004 and present (the “Class Period”), paid for part or all of a commercial bail bond premium in connection with a California state court criminal proceeding. Specifically excluded from this Class are Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant and any person acting on their behalf; any person who acted as a bail agent during the Class Period; any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff; and any juror assigned to this action.”

This class action seeks damages for the hundreds of thousands of Californians who overpaid for unlawfully inflated bail bond premiums, and to prevent this unlawful overcharging to continue.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser has successfully represented clients in hundreds of antitrust, consumer protection, and other class actions that have stopped corporate misconduct and collectively recovered billions of dollars in settlements.

If you purchased a bail bond in California from 2004 to the present, you may have a claim, and we welcome an opportunity to talk with you. You can contact an antitrust attorney at Lieff Cabraser by using the form below, or call us toll-free at 1-888-886-9368. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your bail bond experience:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Knorr and Wabtec Employee Illegal No-Poach Agreements

employees

On April 3, 2018, the United States Department of Justice filed a complaint against Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec), two of the world’s largest rail equipment suppliers, regarding unlawful agreements between them not to compete for each other’s employees. The complaint also names rail equipment maker Faiveley Transport S.A., regarding misconduct Faiveley engaged in prior to being acquired by Wabtec in November 2016.

The DOJ challenges three specific agreements. First, the DOJ alleges that, beginning no later than 2009, Knorr and Wabtec agreed not to recruit or hire without prior approval employees of each other. For instance, in a letter dated January 28, 2009, a director of Knorr Brake Company wrote to a senior executive at Wabtec’s headquarters, “[Y]ou and I both agreed that our practice of not targeting each other’s personnel is a prudent cause for both companies. As you so accurately put it, ‘we compete in the market.’”

Second, the DOJ alleges that Knorr Brake Company (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Knorr) and Faiveley Transport North America, agreed not to recruit each other’s employees without prior authorization from the other company. For example, in October 2011, a senior executive at Knorr Brake Company explained that he had a discussion with an executive at Faiveley’s U.S. subsidiary that “resulted in an agreement between us that we do not poach each other’s employees. We agreed to talk if there was one trying to get a job[.]”

Third, beginning no later than 2014, Wabtec Passenger Transit, a U.S. business unit of Wabtec, and Faiveley Transport North America, agreed not to hire each other’s employees without prior approval. For example, in an e-mail to his colleagues, a Wabtec Passenger Transit executive explained that a candidate for employment “is a good guy, but I don’t want to violate my own agreement with [Faiveley Transport North America].”

The DOJ also filed a stipulated final judgment in which the Defendants agreed not to engage in this misconduct further. However, there was no relief obtained for those injured by the misconduct.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you worked for Knorr-Bremse AG, Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, or Faiveley Tranport S.A., please contact a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser today for a free, confidential review of your potential case.

Lieff Cabraser agrees to protect your name and all confidential information you submit against disclosure, publication or unauthorized use to the full extent under the law.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 

No-Poach Agreements and Employee Antitrust Lawsuits

No-Poach Agreements Violate Fundamental Employee Rights

In 2011, Lieff Cabraser filed a groundbreaking class action against seven of the world’s largest tech companies, including Apple, Google, and Intel, alleging a conspiracy to suppress employee pay through “no-poach” agreements. In 2015, that case resolved for settlements totaling $435 million, the largest resolution in history of antitrust claims in an employment setting.

The Daily Journal described the case as the “most significant antitrust employment case in recent history,” adding that it “has been widely recognized as a legal and public policy breakthrough.”

Unfortunately, the practice of companies secretly agreeing to avoid competing among themselves for employees continues, and continues to artificially suppress employee pay and career mobility and advancement.

Lieff Cabraser continues to investigate and bring cases on behalf of employees whose compensation and mobility have been suppressed as a result of non-compete agreements between employers. For instance, Lieff Cabraser currently represents a doctor in a case against Duke University and Duke University Health System, alleging an unlawful no-hire agreement with the University of North Carolina.

U.S. Department of Justice Announces Plans to Bring Criminal Actions Against No-Poach Violators

In October 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals. In it, the DOJ and FTC announced that they intend to proceed criminally against naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements.

In 2018, numerous reports surfaced indicating that the DOJ is preparing to bring criminal cases against employers who enter into wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements.

Contact an Employee Rights Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

The antitrust and employment lawyers at Lieff Cabraser work vigorously to defend employee rights and fight these abuses. If you or someone you know suspect they have had their opportunities or pay suppressed as a result of no-poach or other agreements, we urge you to contact Antitrust Practice Group partner Dean M. Harvey today for a free, confidential, and no-obligation review of your case. The information you provide will help us hold companies accountable for violations of antitrust and employee protection laws.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Do you have information about a no-poach or other non-compete agreement between employers?

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Restasis Antitrust Litigation

Eyedrops

In Re: Restasis Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2819 (pending).

Lieff Cabraser serves as interim co-lead counsel for indirect purchasers (i.e., consumers) of Restasis, a blockbuster drug used to treat dry-eye disease, in a case alleging a broad-based and ongoing anticompetitive scheme by pharmaceutical giant Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”). The alleged scheme’s goal was and is to maintain Allergan’s monopoly. Lieff Cabraser, together with co-counsel, filed the first two class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers.

The complaints allege that Allergan (1) fraudulently procured patents it knew were invalid, (2) caused those invalid patents to be listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book” as being applicable to Restasis, (3) used the improper Orange Book listings as grounds for filing baseless patent-infringement litigation, (4) abused the FDA’s “citizen petition” process, and (5) used a “sham” transfer of the invalid patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe to obtain tribal sovereign immunity and protect the patents from challenge. This alleged scheme of government petitioning delayed competition from generic equivalents to Restasis that would have been just as safe and cheaper for consumers.

The complaints assert claims under federal and state law, including the Sherman Act and the statutory and common law of numerous states. Several similar lawsuits have since been filed, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has granted Lieff Cabraser’s motion to centralize all cases for pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of New York before the Hon. Nina Gershon.

Mercedes Benz, BMW, Porsche, Volkswagen & Audi Antitrust Collusion Investigation

cars in crowded traffic

Lieff Cabraser is investigating reports from German media as well as The New York Times, Reuters, The Verge, and the Chicago Tribune, among other news outlets, that Daimler, BMW and Volkswagen as well as VW’s Audi and Porsche brands may have colluded for decades on vehicle technology. The stories reference internal manufacturer documents from VW and Daimler that appear to indicate the five manufacturers met with each other over 1,000 times in order to avoid competing with each other to improve the quality of their vehicles. The alleged cartel extended to non-diesel as well as diesel cars.

The broad conspiracy originally reported by Der Spiegel in Germany dating back as far as the 1990s included dozens of working committees that discussed how to limit competition on new technologies, including emissions systems. As a result, consumers basically received less car for their money than they otherwise would have. If true, this was a violation of the antitrust laws and car buyers are entitled to compensation.

Contact an Antitrust Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser About Your Rights

If you are a Mercedes Benz, BMW, VW or Audi owner or lessee and are interested in learning more about the case, please call Lieff Cabraser antitrust partner Brendan Glackin today at 1 800 541-7358 or use the contact form below.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments or questions about the automaker collusion case:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Barclays Bank “No-Poach” Antitrust Violations Investigation

employees

Lieff Cabraser is investigating complaints that multinational British bank giant Barclays may have violated U.S. antitrust laws by promising not to hire employees from U.S. bank JPMorgan. The complaints arose in the wake of a series of high-level executive departures from JPMorgan to Barclays starting in 2015.

The U.S. Department of Justice is also reportedly looking into the situation, and has made document requests to Barclays to see if it made agreements with JPMorgan to avoid hiring additional JPMorgan bankers. Such “no-poach” agreements, as they are called, violate U.S. antitrust law.

Current and former employees of JPMorgan or Barclays who would like to learn more about this investigation or report their experiences may contact us online by using the form below. Or you can contact a Lieff Cabraser antitrust attorney at (800) 541-7358. All information will be kept strictly confidential as provided by law.

Lieff Cabraser has a strong tradition of fighting for employee rights and to maintain competition in the marketplace. Competition in the labor market results in better salaries, enhanced career opportunities for employees, and better products for consumers.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience or knowledge about matters relating to the investigation:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust

Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust

Issue: Alleged nationwide price-fixing conspiracies

Beginning in February 2015, Lieff Cabraser conducted an extensive investigation into dramatic price increases of certain generic drugs. Lieff Cabraser worked alongside economists and industry experts and interviewed industry participants to evaluate possible misconduct.

In December of 2016, Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, filed the first case alleging price-fixing of levothyroxine, the primary treatment for hypothyroidism, among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. Lieff Cabraser also played a significant role in similar litigation over the drug propranolol in the Southern District of New York, and the drug clomipramine in the District of New Jersey. These cases, and other similar cases, were consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724.

On May 19, 2017, Elizabeth Cabraser and Lieff Cabraser were named to the End-Payer Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

Lovenox

Law defined

Nashville General v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. 3:15-cv-01100 (M.D. Tenn.)

Lieff Cabraser represents Nashville General Hospital (the Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan in a proposed class-action antitrust case against defendants Momenta Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz, Inc., for their alleged price-fixing of enoxaparin, the generic version of the anti-coagulant blood clotting drug Lovenox.

Lovenox, developed by Sanofi-Aventis, is a highly profitable drug with annual sales of more than $1 billion. The drug entered the market in 1995 and its patent was invalidated by the federal government in 2008, making generic production possible. The complaint alleges Momenta and Sandoz colluded to manipulate the process by which the federal government allows drugs to become generic in order to ensure that defendants were the only producers of generic enoxaparin, thereby restraining trade and disrupting the market at consumers’ expense.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in December 2017. Discovery is ongoing.

Carolinas HealthCare System Antitrust

Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent consumer plaintiffs in litigation against Carolinas HealthCare System (CHS) alleging the hospital giant is abusing its market power to prevent insurers from offering patients financial incentives to use lower cost or higher quality services offered by competitors.

How CHS’s Anticompetitive Practices Harm Group Plans and Insureds

The U.S. Department of Justice has investigated CHS’s practices and has filed a separate lawsuit against CHS/The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority to stop these violations of the antitrust laws. The suit similarly alleges that CHS’s illegal practices have allowed it to reduce competition and keep its reimbursement rates to insurers higher than they otherwise would be, causing patients to pay significantly more for insurance as a result.

Contact an Antitrust Lawyer

The case against CHS is proceeding.

If you live and work in or around Charlotte, North Carolina, or have CHS in your network, and have insurance through an employer-sponsored group plan, you may have paid too much for insurance and may have had fewer healthcare options than you should have. The Court has already denied a motion to dismiss by CHS. Now is an excellent time to consider joining the lawsuit.

There is no cost or obligation for our review of your potential antitrust lawsuit against CHS. The information you provide will be held in the strictest confidence and will help us hold CHS accountable to businesses like yours and their employees. Conduct like this contributes to the skyrocketing costs for medicine that concern us all.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments or questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

 

Patent Law

Abstract image compliance

Protecting the Rights of Innovators and Creators

Patent Law FAQ Patent Law FAQLieff Cabraser’s intellectual property lawyers represent inventors, startups, and businesses in intellectual property disputes against some of the world’s largest technology companies. Our IP attorneys handle all phases of IP lawsuits, from pre-litigation licensing strategy to appeals before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Read answers to common IP and patent law questions.

Videos: Topics in Patent Law

What are the first steps to take in enforcing a patent?

Contact Lieff Cabraser

Please use the form below to contact an antitrust and intellectual property attorney at Lieff Cabraser regarding your patent law case.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Aluminum Sulfate

pure clean water

Practice Area: Antitrust & Intellectual Property
Allegation: Price-fixing conspiracy

City of Fresno v. General Chemical Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00527 (D.N.J.)

Lieff Cabraser serves as counsel for the City of Fresno in a proposed class action against Chemtrade Logistics Inc. and its affiliates alleging the company colluded with competitors to raise and fix the price of aluminum sulfate (also known as alum), a chemical used to purify water.

Frank A. Reichl, the former general manager of water chemicals at General Chemical Corp., which was bought by Chemtrade in 2014, pled guilty in a U.S. Department of Justice investigation of a price-fixing conspiracy, which prosecutors say took place from 1997 to 2010. Chemtrade admitted to investors that it had obtained amnesty in a deal with the DOJ, something it could only get after admitting its guilt.

Fresno’s complaint notes that Reichl’s indictment evidences numerous opportunities for the defendants to have communicated and conspired in the case, as those entities met regularly to discuss their business. The complaint further alleges that the defendants and their co-conspirators entered in ‘not-to-compete’ agreements, allocated customers, and submitted artificially inflated bids.

A 2013 valuation indicated that the chemical water treatment business had grown to a $5.7 billion industry. As noted in the complaint, the Justice Department has indicated that there are potentially hundreds of municipalities and pulp and paper companies that would have been adversely affected over the 13-year course of the price conspiracy.

Duke/UNC “No-Hire” Agreement

employees

Issue: Illegal agreement to suppress compensation of medical professionals and staff

Lieff Cabraser represents Danielle M. Seaman, M.D. and a class of over 5,000 academic doctors in a class action lawsuit against Duke University, Duke University Health System, and Dr. William L. Roper, M.D., M.P.H., in his official capacity as Dean and Vice-Chancellor of Medical Affairs for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and Chief Executive Officer of the University of North Carolina Health Care System. The lawsuit alleges that an agreement between and among the defendants not to compete for certain of each other’s employees (a “No-Hire” agreement) illegally suppressed employee compensation.

Settlement Receives Final Approval

On September 24, 2019, the U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles granted final approval to the proposed settlement of the Duke/UNC “No Poach” case valued at $54.5 million.

The settlement includes an unprecedented role for the United States Department of Justice to monitor and enforce extensive injunctive relief. Assistant Attorney General Delrahim remarked: “Permitting the United States to become part of this settlement agreement in this private antitrust case, and thereby to obtain all of the relief and protections it likely would have sought after a lengthy investigation, demonstrates the benefits that can be obtained efficiently for the American worker when public and private enforcement work in tandem.” Please visit dukeuncemployeesettlement.com for more information.

Earlier in the Case

On February 1, 2018, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles issued an order certifying a faculty class in the antitrust class action lawsuit against Duke University, UNC, and other related parties over their alleged agreement not to compete for certain of each other’s employees.

In her opinion, Judge Eagles noted that Dr. Seaman had met the class certification standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 with respect to the sought-after faculty class against the Duke defendants in that class treatment of the faculty members was appropriate because questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over individual questions, and that a class action approach was superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the plaintiffs’ claims.

Previously, on January 5, 2018, Judge Eagles granted final approval to the partial settlement of antitrust class action claims against Duke University, UNC, and other related parties.

Partial Settlement Reached in Seaman v. Duke University, et al., No. 1:15-CV462 (M.D.N.C.)

On September 29, 2017, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles granted preliminary approval to a partial settlement of antitrust class action claims against Duke University, UNC, and other related parties. The partial settlement implements a variety of measures by the UNC Defendants to ensure that they will not enter into or enforce any unlawful no-hire agreements or similar restraints on competition. The settlement also requires the UNC Defendants to cooperate in providing documents, data and testimony to Dr. Seaman as she continues to pursue her case against the Duke Defendants. The Duke Defendants have not settled; they remain in the case, which is ongoing.

History of the Case

The complaint charges that the defendants entered into an express, secret agreement not to hire or attempt to hire certain medical facility faculty and staff that they each employed. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief, including treble damages, for defendants’ alleged violations of federal and North Carolina antitrust law.

On February 12, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds, including a denial of state action immunity to antitrust liability. The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that they should be exempt from the nation’s antitrust laws because Dr. Roper, an alleged co-conspirator, is an administrator of a state university and health system. You can click here to read a copy of the Order.

Defendants sought permission to appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 3, 2016, a unanimous three-judge panel denied the request.

Contact us

If you are a medical faculty or staff worker and you think you may have been affected by the conduct described above, we welcome the opportunity to provide you information on your legal rights. We will review your claim for free and with no obligation on your part.

Please contact us using the form below or call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Dean Harvey.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Contact Lens Price Fixing

photo of contact lenses

Issue: Illegal minimum resale price maintenance agreements

Lieff Cabraser represents consumers that purchased disposable contact lenses manufactured by Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, and Cooper Vision, Inc.

The complaint challenges under federal and state antitrust laws the use by contact lens manufacturers of minimum resale price maintenance agreements with independent eye care professionals (including optometrists and ophthalmologists) and wholesalers. These agreements, the complaint alleges, operate to raise retail prices and eliminate price competition and discounts on contact lenses, including from “big box” retail stores, discount buying clubs, and online retailers.

As a result, the consumers across America have paid artificially inflated prices for contact lenses.

CopyTele

Law defined

Result: $9 million settlement
Year: 2014

Lieff Cabraser successfully represented CopyTele, Inc. in a commercial dispute involving intellectual property. In 2011, CopyTele entered into an agreement with AU Optronics (“AUO”) under which both companies would jointly develop two groups of products incorporating CopyTele’s patented display technologies.

CopyTele charged that AUO never had any intention of jointly developing the CopyTele technologies, and instead used the agreements to fraudulently obtain and transfer licenses of CopyTele’s patented technologies. The case required the review of thousands of pages of documents in Chinese and in English culminating in a two week arbitration hearing. In December 2014, after the hearing, the parties resolved the matter, with CopyTele receiving $9 million.

Read further information about Lieff Cabraser’s commercial litigation and intellectual property practices.

Lasik

Law defined

Result: $12.5 million settlement
Year: 2001

In re Lasik/PRK Antitrust Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in class actions brought on behalf of persons who underwent Lasik/PRK eye surgery. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, the manufacturers of the laser system used for the laser vision correction surgery, manipulated fees charged to ophthalmologists and others who performed the surgery, and that the overcharges were passed onto consumers who paid for laser vision correction surgery.

In December 2001, the Court approved a $12.5 million settlement of the litigation.

Carpets

Carpets

Result: $50 million settlement
Year: 2001

In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel and a member of the trial team for a class of direct purchasers of twenty-ounce level loop polypropylene carpet.

Plaintiffs, distributors of polypropylene carpet, alleged that Defendants, seven manufacturers of polypropylene carpet, conspired to fix the prices of polypropylene carpet by agreeing to eliminate discounts and charge inflated prices on the carpet.

In 2001, the Court approved a $50 million settlement of the case.

Buspar

white pills

Result: $90 million settlement
Year: 2003

In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation

In November 2003, Lieff Cabraser obtained a $90 million cash settlement for individual consumers, consumer organizations, and third party payers that purchased BuSpar, a drug prescribed to alleviate symptoms of anxiety.

Plaintiffs alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS), Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc. entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade under which BMS paid a potential generic manufacturer of BuSpar to drop its challenge to BMS’ patent and refrain from entering the market.

Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel.

California Vitamins

Vitamins

Result: $105 million settlement
Year: 2002

California Vitamins Cases

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Co-Chairman of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee on behalf of a class of California indirect vitamin purchasers in every level of the chain of distribution.

In January 2002, the Court granted final approval of a $96 million settlement with certain vitamin manufacturers in a class action alleging that these and other manufacturers engaged in price fixing of particular vitamins. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to over $8.8 million in additional settlements.

Comdata Truck Stop Antitrust Class Action

Truckstop

Issue: Monopolization

On July 14, 2014, the Court approved a settlement of $130 million plus prospective relief in an antitrust class action lawsuit brought by truck stops and other retail fueling facilities that paid percentage-based transaction fees to Comdata on proprietary card transactions using Comdata’s over-the-road fleet card.

The complaint challenged allegedly anticompetitive arrangements among Comdata, its parent company Ceridian LLC, and three national truck stop chains: defendants TravelCenters of America LLC and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and its predecessor Pilot Corporation, and Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. The alleged misconduct insulated Comdata from competition, enhanced its market power, and led to independent truck stops’ paying artificially inflated transaction fees.

In addition to the $130 million payment, the settlement requires Comdata to change certain of its allegedly anticompetitive business practices which will promote competition among payment cards used by over-the-road fleets and truckers and lead to lower merchant fees for the independent truck stops.

Visit truckstopantitrustsettlement.com for further details concerning the settlement and contact information for the claims administrator. The deadline for submitting a claim was June 4, 2014.

Lupron

Syringe and medication

Result: $150 million settlement
Year: 2005

In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

In May 2005, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of a class action lawsuit by patients, insurance companies and health and welfare benefit plans that paid for Lupron, a prescription drug used to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty.

The settlement required the defendants, Abbott Laboratories, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, and TAP Pharmaceuticals, to pay $150 million, inclusive of costs and fees, to persons or entities who paid for Lupron from January 1, 1985 through March 31, 2005.

Plaintiffs charged that the defendants conspired to overstate the drug’s average wholesale price, which resulted in plaintiffs paying more for Lupron than they should have paid. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.