Antitrust

Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Bridgestone Industrial Products America, Inc., et al., 07-21784 (S.D. Fla.).  This class action alleges that defendant-manufacturers of flexible rubber hose used to transport oil between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks, among other things, conspired to fix the price of the marine hoses.

Caldwell v. Matsuhita Electrical Industrial Co. Ltd., et al., 07-6303 (N.D. Ca.).  Miller Law LLC, along with co-counsel, represents a plaintiff who seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged price fixing of cathode ray tubes in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

Cocoe Voci, Inc. v. YKK Corporation, et al., 07-9929 (S.D.N.Y.).  Plaintiff alleges that the defendants rigged the prices of fasteners and zippers that are primarily used in the garment, apparel and footwear industries in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

Nizhnekamskneftekhim USA, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 07-2809 (E.D. Pa.).  Miller Law LLC, along with co-counsel, filed a complaint on behalf of those who purchased directly from the railroad defendants “unregulated” rail freight transportation services on which rail fuel surcharges were assessed.

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775 (E.D.N.Y.).  Miller Law LLC represents plaintiffs who seek recovery from air cargo shipping provider-defendants that it is alleged participated in a global conspiracy to fix prices charged for these shipping services at supra-competitive levels, in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

In re Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation, 04-MD-1603 (S.D.N.Y.).  The firm represents plaintiffs (consumers and third party payors) in these multidistrict class actions on behalf of purchasers of controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride prescription tablets marketed under the brand name OxyContin® .

In re Relafen Antitrust Litig. 01-12239 (D. Mass.).  The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted final approval to a $75 million class action settlement for the benefit of consumers and third-party payors who paid for branded and generic versions of the arthritis medication Relafen. 

In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., MDL 98-1232 (D. Del.).  A multi-district class action on behalf of purchasers of Coumadin, the brand-name Warfarin sodium manufactured and marketed by DuPont Pharmaceutical Company.  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct that wrongfully suppressed competition from generic warfarin sodium.  The case settled for $44.5 million settlement which was affirmed on appeal.  See In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002). 

Ryan-House v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 2:02cv442 (E.D. Va.).  Plaintiffs allege that GSK, which makes Augmentin, misled the United States Patent Office into issuing patents to protect Augmentin from competition from generic substitutes.  The case was resolved and the court approved a $29 million settlement for the benefit of consumers and third-party payors.  Ryan-House, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, et al., No. 02-442 (January 10, 2005, E.D. Va.)

In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich.).  Multi-district class action on behalf of purchasers of Cardizem CD, a brand-name heart medication manufactured and marketed by Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (now merged into Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)  Plaintiffs alleged that an agreement between HMR and generic manufacturer Andrx Corp. unlawfully stalled generic competition.  The $80 million settlement for the benefit of third-party payors and consumers was granted final approval.  In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003), appeal dismissed, 391 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2004). 

In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., MDL 1290 (D.D.C.).  This multidistrict class action arose out of an alleged scheme to corner the market on the active pharmaceutical ingredients necessary to manufacture generic clorazepate and lorazepam tablets.  After cornering the market on the supply, defendants raised prices for generic clorazepate and lorazepam tablets by staggering amounts (i.e., 1,900% to over 6,500%) despite no significant increase in costs.  On February 1, 2002, Judge Thomas F. Hogan approved a class action settlements on behalf of consumers, state attorneys general and third party payors in the aggregate amount of $135 million.  See 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002).

In re Synthroid Marketing Litig., MDL No. 1182 (N.D. Ill.).  This multi-district action arises out of alleged  unlawful activities with respect to the marketing of Synthroid, a levothyroxine product used to treat thyroid disorders.  Final approval of a settlement in the amount of $87.4 million plus interest was affirmed on appeal.  See 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001).

In re Lithotripsy Antitrust Litig., No. 98 C 8394 (N.D. IL).  Antitrust class action arising out of alleged stabilization of urologist fees in the Chicago metropolitan area. 

Brand-Name Prescription Drug Indirect Purchaser Actions.  Coordinated antitrust actions against the major pharmaceutical manufacturers in ten states and the District of Columbia.  The actions were brought under state law on behalf of indirect purchaser consumers who obtained brand name prescription drugs from retail pharmacies.  In 1998, the parties agreed to a multistate settlement in the amount of $64.3 million, which was allocated among the actions.

In Re Cellular Phone Cases, Coordination Proceeding No. 4000 (Superior Court, San Francisco County, Cal.)  Class action under California’s Cartwright Act, which alleged price-fixing of cellular telephone service in the San Francisco area market.  The $35 million of in kind benefits to the Class was granted final approval.

Garabedian v. LASMSA Limited Partnership, No. 721144 (Superior Court, Orange County, Cal.).  Class action under California’s Cartwright Act which alleged price-fixing of cellular telephone service in the Los Angeles area market.  The court granted final approval to two settlements that provide $165 million of in-kind benefits.

Lobatz v. AirTouch Cellular, 94-1311 BTM (AJB) (S.D. Cal.)  Class action alleging price-fixing of cellular telephone service in San Diego County, California. The court approved settlements of $8 million in cash and other benefits.

In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1058 (D. Minn.)  Antitrust class action on behalf of travel agents against the major airlines for allegedly fixing the amount of commissions payable on ticket sales. The action settled for $87 million. See 953 F. Supp. 280 (D. Minn. 1997).