The free market only works when participants play by the rules.  When the rules are broken, victims of anticompetitive behavior and other unfair business practices turn to Labaton Sucharow.

Labaton Sucharow’s Antitrust Practice Group is nationally recognized for its representation of both large and small businesses that have been injured by price-fixing, monopolization and other anticompetitive conduct.  The Firm is at the forefront of representing direct purchasers of products and services affected by anticompetitive conduct, and it has successfully litigated and obtained large monetary and equitable recoveries of more than $1.5 billion in major antitrust class actions.  Notably, the Firm’s pioneering work in the 1990s in the pharmaceutical industry was instrumental in the struggle to control the rising costs of pharmaceuticals, and it secured the Firm’s place in the national spotlight as a leader in the fight against illegal cartels and monopolies.

Lead Counsel Appointments

Courts around the nation have selected Labaton Sucharow to serve as a Lead Counsel in numerous high-profile antitrust cases, including In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.), In re Aftermarket Filters Litigation (N.D. Ill.), In re Flat Glass II Antitrust Litigation (W.D. Pa.), In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation (S.D. Fla.), In re Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Antitrust Litigation (C.D. Cal.),  In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litigation (D.P.R.), In re Parcel Tanker Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation (D. Conn.),  and In re Tricor Antitrust Litigation (D. Del.).

Labaton Sucharow also serves on the Executive Committee in other major antitrust litigations, including In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Pa), In re Payment Card Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.), In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), Edward O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Collegiate Licensing Company (N.D. Cal.) and In re Transpacific Airlines Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.).

Major Recoveries In Antitrust Actions

The Antitrust Practice Group’s continued record of successful recoveries for victims of anticompetitive conduct speaks for itself.  As a Lead Counsel, the Firm’s Antitrust Practice Group has achieved many outstanding results – highlights include: 

• Obtained $135.4 million to settle claims against Mylan Laboratories, Inc. for unlawful and anticompetitive price increases for generic versions of the anti-anxiety drugs lorazepam and clorazepate.  
• Obtained settlements totaling almost $101 million on behalf of a class of NYMEX Natural Gas futures traders, the second-largest class action commodities manipulation recovery on record. 
• Obtained settlements totaling almost $90 million in class actions pending in California state court against Sumitomo Corporation and others, on behalf of business purchasers of copper products harmed by unlawfully inflated copper prices. 
• Obtained $85 million partial settlement with defendants Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. for an alleged conspiracy to fix surcharges for air cargo shipping services.  The case continues against remaining defendants.  
• Obtained $65.7 million settlement to settle claims stemming from allegations that the price that individuals and insurers paid for TriCor, a cholesterol-lowering medication, was inflated because of anticompetitive conduct.  
• Obtained partial settlements totaling almost $22 million on behalf of businesses injured by an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of marine hose. 

• Obtained $33.75 million partial settlements, pending approval by the Court, on behalf of businesses injured by an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of ocean freight services between the continental United States and Puerto Rico.   

Comments About The Antitrust Practice Group By The Courts

At Defendants’ motions to dismiss hearing in In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, remarked on the Firm’s advocacy, stating:

“I do want to just make the point that the advocacy has really been remarkable both on the papers and in the arguments today – I really appreciate it.  It’s been a pleasure to hear so many good litigators advocate their positions.  So thank you.” 

In approving the $90 million settlement on behalf of the class in In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, Judge John Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, commented on the Firm’s performance as Co-Lead Counsel, and stated:

“Let me say that the lawyers in this case have done a stupendous job. They really have.”

In approving the $44.5 million cash settlement in In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation, Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson, of the United States District Court of Delaware, said,

“The class counsel are well-qualified to litigate this type of complex class action, and they showed their effectiveness in the case at bar and the favorable cash settlement they were able to obtain.”

In granting final approvals of the almost $65 million multi-state cash settlements in the Brand Name Prescription Drug cases, various courts commented favorably upon the expertise and experience of Labaton Sucharow’s Antitrust Practice Group. For example: 

• Judge Myron Greenberg, in approving the Minnesota portion of the settlement, noted:  “I think the lawyering in this case is most commendable ... [Counsel] have accorded themselves in a manner that allows us to be proud of the profession.”
• Similarly, Judge Moria Krueger, in approving Wisconsin’s portion of the settlement, complimented the Firm and noted: “This Court has been helped along every step of the way by some outstanding lawyering ... [Y]ou can hardly say that there has been anything but five star attorneys involved in this case.”
• Judge Carl O. Bradford also commented when approving the Main portion of the settlement:  “I’ll join my learned colleagues ... in commending counsel in arriving at something that represents a great deal of hard work and a great deal of ingenuity in putting together a settlement of this magnitude and complexity.”

For additional information on other class action and Antitrust cases, please visit Cases on our web site.