© 2008 Zelle Hofmann/ Not Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Site Map / Disclaimer / Search / Site by Firmseek
Antitrust Cases
Examples of Current Antitrust Cases
Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y.). Zelle Hofmann represents a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Air Cargo shipping services in this multidistrict class action. A partial settlement has been reached with one defendant for $85 million, and a proceeding is currently underway to allocate the settlement proceeds between indirect purchasers and other plaintiffs in the litigation.
Cosmetics Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.; California Superior Court, Marin County). A consumer class action on behalf of California purchasers seeking redress for alleged price-fixing by department stores and manufacturers of high-end cosmetics and beauty products. The complaint alleges that the department stores and manufacturers violated and continue to violate the California Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act. The case settled for injunctive relief and consideration valued at $175 million.
Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases (California Superior Court, San Francisco). Zelle Hofmann is Lead Counsel in a consumer class action lawsuit against Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and MasterCard International, Inc., alleging that defendants and others collusively set unreasonably high charges for debit cards that vendors passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices on retail goods and services. The complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and seeks injunctive relief and restitution arising from defendants’ alleged illegal tying arrangements and anti-competitive activities.
Chinese Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, California and Massachusetts State Courts). Zelle Hofmann has been retained by a major Chinese manufacturer of Vitamin C and certain of its affiliates in connection with federal and state antitrust actions filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The federal direct purchaser case was filed in the Eastern District of New York. Indirect purchaser cases have been filed in California and Massachusetts. All of the complaints allege a price-fixing conspiracy among four Chinese manufacturers beginning in December 2001.
DRAM Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.; California Superior Court, San Francisco). Zelle Hofmann is the Court-appointed Liaison Counsel and a member of plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, in a nationwide class action brought by indirect purchasers of DRAM. Plaintiffs allege that DRAM manufacturers conspired to fix the prices from April 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002. The class includes purchasers of computers and other products containing DRAM, and seeks injunctive relief and damages under state and federal laws. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. A partial settlement has been reached with one defendant for $82.5 million.
EPDM Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, D. Conn.) Zelle Hofmann represents a large corporate plaintiff which opted out of a class settlement and is pursuing separate litigation in connection with an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate market shares by manufacturers of EPDM, a synthetic rubber product.
Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.). Zelle Hofmann serves as the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel representing a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Flash Memory products in this multi-district antitrust class action filed against the largest manufacturers of Flash Memory. Plaintiffs allege that these companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain the prices of Flash Memory. These cases are consolidated before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, D. Del.). Zelle Hofmann represents consumers in a nationwide class action against Intel on behalf of consumer and business purchasers of x86 microprocessors used in personal computers and other products. The complaint alleges that Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 microprocessor market by, among other things, engaging in exclusive dealing arrangements with various Original Equipment Manufacturers such as Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo, and NEC in an effort to lock AMD out of several key market segments. The complaint alleges that as a result of these practices consumers and businesses paid artificially high prices for products containing Intel’s x86 microprocessors. The cases are consolidated before Judge Joseph Farnan in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, along with the related individual competitor action filed by AMD.
Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa.). Zelle Hofmann represents, as opt-outs, three major international companies in this federal antitrust action against integrated manufacturers of linerboard, corrugated medium, and corrugated containers. The complaint alleges that the manufacturers violated U.S. antitrust laws by, among other things, conspiring to reduce linerboard inventories and thereby increase prices. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Microsoft Antitrust Litigation (California Superior Court, San Francisco). Zelle Hofmann is the Court-appointed Liaison Counsel and Chair of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, in this indirect purchaser class action on behalf of an estimated fourteen million California consumers and businesses. The Class alleges that Microsoft illegally acquired and maintained monopolies in the markets for Microsoft's MS-DOS and Windows operating system software, as well as its Word and Excel applications software, in violation of California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Act. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Microsoft's illegal conduct, they were overcharged for this software. In early 2003, on the eve of trial, after over three years of intensive litigation, the case settled for $1.1 billion.
Microsoft Antitrust Litigation (Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota). Zelle Hofmann is the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for a class of indirect purchasers of Microsoft’s operating systems, word processing and spreadsheet software certified by the Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota. The action is brought pursuant to Minnesota antitrust law. In June 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals not to review the District Court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs subsequently defeated Microsoft’s motions for partial summary judgment and to decertify the classes. On March 1, 2004, plaintiffs, led by Zelle Hofmann, began the first-ever antitrust, consumer class action jury trial against Microsoft. Six weeks later, after plaintiffs introduced evidence of Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct that had never been publicly disclosed following the direct testimony of plaintiffs’ liability expert, the parties reached a settlement for over $175 million, the largest in the history of Minnesota consumer antitrust litigation.
Microsoft Antitrust Litigation (Iowa District Court for Polk County). Zelle Hofmann serves as the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for a class of indirect purchasers of Microsoft’s operating systems, word processing and spreadsheet software, certified by the Polk County District Court in Iowa under state antitrust law. On Novenber 13, 2006, plaintiffs, led by Zelle Hofmann and co-counsel , began the second-ever antitrust, consumer class action jury trial against Microsoft (after having successfully faced Microsoft at trial in Minnesota state court, in 2004, in a similar proceeding). Three months into trial, the parties reached a settlement for close to $180 million in cash payments to consumers and vouchers to volume licensees and state and local governments. This is the first Microsoft action to include cash payments to consumers. One-half of unclaimed proceeds will be paid in technology vouchers to Iowa public schools. Additionally, Iowa Legal Aid received $1 miilion in cash out of the cy pres funds. The settlerment received final approval on August 31, 2007.
Microsoft Antitrust Litigation (Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court). Zelle Hofmann serves as the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for a class of indirect purchasers of Microsoft’s operating systems, word processing and spreadsheet software, certified by the Milwaukee County District Court in Wisconsin under state antitrust law. The parties reached a settlement for close to $224 million in vouchers to consumers, businesses, and state and local governmental entities. One-half of unclaimed vouchers goes to needy Wisconsin public schools in the form of technology vouchers which can be used for most software and hardware. The settlement received final approval on April 6, 2007.
Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, California Government Entities (U.S. District Court, D. Md.) Zelle Hofmann is co-counsel for a class of California government entities, including the City of San Francisco and Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and San Mateo counties as plaintiffs and class representatives, against Microsoft for unlawful monopolization of operating system, word processing, and spreadsheet software markets. The parties reached a settlement for $70 million.
Natural Gas Antitrust Cases (U.S. District Court, D. Nev.; California Superior Court, San Diego). Federal and state class actions against marketers of natural gas in California, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, California Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act. The actions are brought on behalf of direct and indirect persons and entities in California who purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001, i.e., during the California Energy Crisis. The actions allege that, among other things, the defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a variety anticompetitive practices which raised interstate natural gas transportation prices, the bundled price of natural gas, spot natural gas prices, and natural gas market basis swap derivative settlement amounts in and for California. Zelle Hofmann is Co-Lead Counsel in the federal case and a member of the Executive Committee in the state case. Partial settlements totaling approximately $160 million have been reached and approved by the Court to date.
New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, D. Maine). Zelle Hofmann has a major role in class actions on behalf of new car buyers against the major new car manufacturers, alleging a conspiracy to prevent lower-cost new cars from being exported from Canada to the United States, thereby causing higher prices for new cars in the United States. The firm is Liaison Counsel in the California state court action, which is coordinated with a nationwide federal action pending in the United States District Court in Portland, Maine. Plaintiffs have secured over $35 million to date in partial settlements.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa.). Zelle Hofmann represents a nationwide class of retail pharmacists alleging antitrust violations by Medco, the leading Pharmacy Benefits Manager, and Merck, a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer, in connection with the pricing and distribution of prescription drugs.
Smokeless Tobacco Antitrust Litigation (California Superior Court, San Francisco). Plaintiffs have obtained final approval of a $96,000,000 settlement in the Smokeless Tobacco Antitrust Litigation pending in the California Superior Court in San Francisco, California. Zelle Hofmann attorneys have been integrally involved in this litigation, as the firm serves on the Executive Committee, and was extensively involved in all aspects of this case. The settlement was achieved after five years of hard-fought litigation, after the completion of most discovery, as trial approached, and in the context of a court-ordered mediation before a former Justice of the California Court of Appeal. The settlement provides $96 million in cash to pay to a class of California indirect purchasers of moist snuff products which alleged that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco monopolized the moist snuff market and engaged in restrictive and exclusionary acts during the time period 1990 to the present in violation of California state antitrust laws.
Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.). Zelle Hofmann serves as the court-appointed Lead Counsel representing a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SRAM products in this multi-district antitrust class action filed against the largest manufacturers of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM). Plaintiffs allege that these companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain the prices of SRAM. These cases are consolidated before Judge Claudia Wilken in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Sullivan et al. v. DeBeers et al. (U.S. District Court, D.N.J.). Zelle Hofmann represents consumers in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry in the United States, alleging that the De Beers group of companies unlawfully monopolized the gem diamonds market. The court approved a class action settlement on April 14, 2008. The settlement created a $295 million Settlement Fund for resellers and consumers who purchased diamonds from January 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. In addition, as part of the settlement, De Beers agreed to a stipulated injunction, which provides that De Beers will abide by federal and state antitrust laws, will not engage in certain specific conduct to control prices or restrict supply, and will submit to the Court’s jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcement of the injunction.
TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.). Zelle Hofmann serves as the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel representing a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of LCD products, such as flat panel televisions and computer monitors, in this multi-district antitrust class action filed against the world’s leading manufacturers of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD), and alleging that these companies engaged in a conspiracy to artificially inflate the prices of their LCD products. These cases are consolidated before Judge Susan Illston in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Examples of Significant Historical Antitrust Cases
Below are summaries of significant historical antitrust cases on which Zelle Hofmann attorneys have worked. These cases demonstrate the breadth of Zelle Hofmann attorneys’ experience in prosecuting and defending antitrust matters.
American Basketball Ass’n v. National Basketball Ass’n (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.). An antitrust suit was filed in 1969 on behalf of the ABA, then only two years old, against the NBA, accusing the latter of attempting to eliminate competition and restrain trade through the control or monopolization of superstars and other players, facilities and television coverage. A settlement was reached in 1971, whereby both leagues promised to petition Congress for antitrust exemption legislation. The ABA contended that the NBA was not honoring this agreement and was continuing to restrain trade. Zelle Hofmann and other attorneys represented the ABA in a second action filed in 1974. In 1976, the ABA and NBA settled a few weeks before trial, with the Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, San Antonio Spurs and New York Nets joining the NBA. Published opinions: 404 F.Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); 389 F.Supp. 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).
Asphalt Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., D. New Mex., D. Idaho, D. Colo.). A price-fixing case brought on behalf of various public bodies. See State of New Mexico v. American Petrofina, et al., 501 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1974).
Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.). A federal antitrust action by plaintiff classes of retail pharmacists alleging price fixing of brand name prescription drugs by two dozen of the world’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers. The class obtained over $700 million in settlements, plus commitments with respect to future pricing practices.
B.W.I. Custom Kitchens v. Owens Illinois, et al. (California Superior Court, San Francisco.) 191 Cal.App.3d 1341, 235 Cal.Rptr. 228 (1987). An antitrust action on behalf of a class of California indirect purchasers of glass containers.
California Indirect-Purchaser Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, (California Superior Court, Los Angeles.) 1998 WL 1031494, 1998-2 Trade Cases ¶72,336. An antitrust action under the California Cartwright Act on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased infant formula.
Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., California Superior Court, San Francisco). A class action brought against producers of carbon black, an engineered carbon compound, alleging violations of the California Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act. The action was brought on behalf of persons and entities in California who indirectly purchased carbon black from June 19, 1999 through the present. The action alleges that, among other things, the defendants and their co-conspirators conspired and engaged in price-fixing, market allocation and other anticompetitive practices which raised carbon black prices in California. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and damages arising from defendants’ alleged unlawful activities. Zelle Hofmann was the court-appointed Co-Liaison counsel for the state court plaintiff class and a member of the plaintiffs’ executive committee.
Espirit de Corp. v. Alton Box Board Co., et al. (California Superior Court, San Francisco; U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., 9th Cir.). An antitrust class action on behalf of California indirect purchasers of corrugated boxes, and involving a related federal court action addressing preemption, jurisdictional and other issues. See Alton Box Board Co. v. Esprit De Corp., 682 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1982).
ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington Northern, Inc. (U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex.). This litigation was one of the largest cases ever tried in federal court. The case involved allegations that a group of railroads, including the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., conspired over a ten-year period to prevent a pipeline from being built that would transport slurried coal from South Dakota to Texas. The plaintiffs included Bechtel Corp., Texas Eastern Pipeline Co., Houston Lighting & Power Co. and the Lower Colorado River Authority/City of Austin. Zelle Hofmann attorneys and other attorneys commenced representation of defendant Santa Fe in October of 1987. Over the next two years, Zelle Hofmann attorneys were involved in many depositions, preparation of briefs on nearly every conceivable aspect of antitrust law and trial procedure, and the preparation for a lengthy trial. Trial commenced in Beaumont, Texas in January of 1989 and lasted two months. Santa Fe by then was the only remaining defendant. After the jury found for ETSI but against HL&P, Zelle Hofmann attorneys participated in a vigorous appeal, and the case was eventually settled during the pendency of the appeal when the client moved forward with its restructuring program.
Gypsum Wallboard Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.) A price fixing case brought on behalf of a national class of governmental bodies. See In re Gypsum Cases, 386 F. Supp. 959 (N.D.Cal. 1974), 1974-2 Trade Cases ¶74,272 (N.D. Cal. 1974).
In re Concrete Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, D. Ariz.) 1980 WL 1994 (D.Ariz.), 1980-81 Trade Cases P 63,798. An antitrust class action on behalf of Arizona ready mix concrete purchasers.
In re Folding Cartons Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill., 7th Cir.) 567 F.2d 392 (7th Cir. 1977). An antitrust price fixing action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of direct purchasers of folding cartons.
In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal) 1976 WL 1374. An antitrust price fixing action brought on behalf of three private classes of sugar purchasers in the Western United States.
In re Toys’ R Us Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y.) 191 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). A nationwide class action alleging anticompetitive activities in the children’s toy market.
Issuer Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.). A class action on behalf of issuing companies against underwriters of initial public offerings, alleging price fixing of IPO underwriting fees. Zelle Hofmann was the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiff class.
Kellogg Company – Shared Monopoly Case (Federal Trade Commission). Zelle Hofmann attorneys and other attorneys represented Kellogg Company in this case which literally threatened the company’s existence. An activist Federal Trade Commission hoped to establish the power to regulate highly concentrated industries under Section 5 of the FTC Act even where no violation of the antitrust laws was shown. The FTC sought to break Kellogg into four companies based on the claim that it had shared a cereal monopoly with three other major cereal manufacturers through parallel, non-collusive activity. The FTC also sought to compel Kellogg to license its trademarks on a royalty-free basis. The case involved industrial organization issues of parallel corporate conduct, creation of barriers to entry and excess profitability. Zelle Hofmann attorneys participated in the development of creative defense strategies and presented and rebutted highly sophisticated economic testimony. The FTC ultimately dismissed the case, after the administrative law judge ruled in Kellogg’s favor on nearly every disputed issue of fact.
Kellogg Company of Great Britain Ltd. -- UK Cartonboard Matter (High Court of Justice, London). A private antitrust action in the United Kingdom on behalf of an international food manufacturer alleging price fixing by suppliers of packaging materials. Kellogg of Great Britain's claims related to the defendants' participation from mid-1986 until at least April 1991 in a European Community-wide price-fixing conspiracy, as a result of which Kellogg alleged that it was charged excessive prices for cartonboard. Zelle Hofmann negotiated a favorable settlement on its client's behalf.
Pharmaceutical Cases I, II and III (California Superior Court, San Francisco). An indirect-purchaser, consumer class action alleging that prescription drug manufacturers and wholesalers kept prices unreasonably high to retail pharmacies that passed on the overcharges to consumers.
Plumbing Fixtures Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.). A price‑fixing case brought on behalf of classes of public bodies and various private clients. See Lindy Bros. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir. 1973).
Plywood Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, E.D. La.). The Fifth Circuit upheld a jury verdict finding that three plywood manufacturers – Georgia Pacific Corp., Weyerhaeuser Co. and Willamette Industries – had conspired to fix delivered prices, with possible damages estimated to be as high as $2 billion. Zelle Hofmann attorneys and other attorneys, representing defendants, won important rulings on the damage phase of the case at the trial level and led a successful effort to have the Supreme Court grant certiorari to review the verdict of liability. The case was eventually settled for a sum far less than projected damage exposure. Published opinions: 655 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1981); 663 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed, 462 U.S. 1125 (1983).
Presidio Golf Club of San Francisco, Inc., et al. v. National Service Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.) 1972 WL 606, 1972 Trade Cases ¶74,129. A price fixing action brought on behalf of class of linen service users against linen suppliers.
Sprint (Southern Pacific Comm. Co. v. AT&T (U.S. District Court, N.D.Cal., D.C.Cir.). In December of 1982, Southern Pacific Co. had lost an antitrust action in the federal district court for the District of Columbia against AT&T for attempting to monopolize the market for private line telecommunications services (SPI). Also, the time was running out for filing a second action against AT&T for attempting to monopolize the market for switched telephone services (SP II). Zelle Hofmann attorneys and other attorneys represented Southern Pacific on appeal. Although the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the judgment below, Zelle Hofmann attorneys represented Southern Pacific in SP II in federal district court in San Francisco, where it was consolidated for discovery purposes with similar actions by MCI and U.S. Transmission Systems. AT&T’s summary judgment motion based on res judicata was defeated in mid-1985. While additional summary judgment motions were pending, the case settled favorably for Southern Pacific. Published opinions: 740 F.2d 980 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005 (1984); 740 F.2d 1011 (D.C.Cir. 1984).
Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, D.D.C.). Zelle Hofmann represented a major international food manufacturer in a federal antitrust action against domestic and foreign manufacturers of bulk vitamins, vitamin premixes and other vitamin products used in the manufacture of food products. The complaint alleged that the manufacturers violated U.S. antitrust laws by, among other things, conspiring to fix prices, allocate sales and allocate customers. The matter was settled on a highly favorable basis to our client, for significantly more money than could have been achieved through the class action.
© 2008 Zelle Hofmann/ Not Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Site Map / Disclaimer / Search / Site by Firmseek
