Antitrust Litigation

Our firm represents individuals and businesses in antitrust class action suits to recover damages caused by manufacturers and producers of goods and services who fix prices and otherwise violate the antitrust laws. We have extensive experience litigating antitrust class actions and have been instrumental in obtaining large recoveries against the manufacturers or producers of automotive refinishing paint, carbon fiber, flat glass, oriented strand board, graphite electrodes, citric acid, sodium gluconate, sorbates, polypropylene and nylon carpet, and residential doors, among others.

Integrity – Protecting Competition

The federal antitrust laws protect businesses and consumers by ensuring that business practices remain competitive and fair. The primary antitrust laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to preserve the competitive nature of the free market economy and are federal statutes such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936. These laws protect businesses and consumers from several types of antitrust violations, including:

• agreements to fix prices at artificially inflated levels, to secure increased profits and sales;
• agreements to allocate customers or markets, to eliminate or reduce competition;
• boycotts to prevent competitors from entering markets;
• monopolization to eliminate competition in a particular market; and
• bid-rigging by competitors to determine in advance which competitor will be awarded a particular contract.

Although antitrust laws are often enforced by the federal and state governments, governmental action does not usually compensate for any harm caused by those who violate the law. Individuals and businesses, however, may bring civil lawsuits for damages they have suffered as a result of violations of the antitrust laws. These lawsuits are often the best way of directly compensating victims of antitrust violations. In addition, these lawsuits serve as a deterrent to future antitrust violations because the potential penalties can be so large. For example, federal law permits victims of antitrust violations to sue in federal court for three times their actual damages. Private antitrust lawsuits are often brought as class actions. Class actions permit hundreds or thousands of individuals or businesses who are harmed by the same conduct to prosecute litigations in a single court, thereby avoiding the duplication of effort and expense of numerous individual actions.

Service – Antitrust Litigation Services

BR&B is committed to providing the highest quality litigation services to our clients. Combining vigorous advocacy with creative approaches to litigation, we have achieved outstanding results. Because each antitrust litigation matter is unique, we staff each matter in accordance with the needs of the case.

Our firm is nationally recognized for its long and successful history of litigating major antitrust class actions throughout the United States. Among the major antitrust class actions where the firm has been appointed Lead counsel or to the Executive Committee of all plaintiffs’ counsel are the following:

• In re New Jersey Title Insurance Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-1425 (PGS), before the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan in the District of New Jersey;
• In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1426 before the Honorable R. Barclay Surrick in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 3:04 MDL 1631 (SRU), before the Honorable Stefan R. Underhill in the District of Connecticut;
• In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 97-CV-4182(CRW), before the Honorable Charles R. Weiner in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket Misc. No. 970550, MDL No. 1200, before the Honorable Donald E. Ziegler in the Western District of Pennsylvania;
• Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et al., No. CV-99-07796-GHK(Ctx), before the Honorable Florence Marie Cooper in the Central District of California, Western Division;
• In re Sorbates Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. C 98-4886 MCC, before the Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr. in the Northern District of California;
• In re Sodium Gluconate Antitrust Litigation, No. C-97-4142CW, before the Honorable Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California; and In re: Metal Building Insulation Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. H-96-3490, before the Honorable Nancy F. Atlas in the Southern District of Texas.
• In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075, before the Honorable Harold L. Murphy in the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division;
• In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 95-2963, before the Honorable Charles A. Legge in the Northern District of California;
• Capital Sign Company, Inc. v. Alliance Metals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 95-CV-6557 (LHP), before the Honorable Louis H. Pollak in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• Plastic Cutlery Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 96-728, before the Honorable Joseph L. McGlynn in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• In re Residential Doors Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1039, before the Honorable Raymond J. Broderick in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• In re Plastic Tableware Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 94-CV-3564, before the Honorable Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• Uniondale Beer Co., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV 86-2400(TCP), before the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, Jr. in the Eastern District of New York;
• Fisher Brothers, v. Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc., et al., Master File No. 82-4921, before the Honorable Norma L. Shapiro in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
• In re D.C. Soft Drinks Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 86-2974 before the Honorable Stanley Sporkin in the District of Columbia.

Results – Case Studies

BR&B has achieved significant recoveries on behalf of class members in antitrust litigation. The following antitrust class cases are indicative of BR&B’s experience and expertise:

• Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et al., No. CV-99-07796 (C.D. Cal.). BR&B, serving as co-lead counsel for the class, has entered into settlements totaling $67.5 million.
• In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 97-CV-4182(CRW) (E.D.Pa.). BR&B served as co-lead counsel for the class in this international price-fixing case. Settlements in this case exceeded $133 million.
• In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 95-2963 (N.D. Cal.). BR&B, serving as co-lead counsel for the class, recovered more than $80 million from members of this international cartel.
• In re Sorbates Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. C 98-4886 MCC (N.D. Cal.). As co-lead counsel in this price-fixing action, BR&B recovered in excess of $80 million for the class.
• In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1426 (E.D.Pa.). BR&B serves as co-lead counsel for the class in this price-fixing litigation. Settlements in this case exceeded $105 million.
• In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket Misc. No. 970550, MDL No. 1200, (W.D. Pa.). BR&B, co-lead counsel for the class, has recovered more than $120 million in this price-fixing case.
• In re Polypropylene and Nylon Carpet Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:98-CV-0267-HLM (N.D.Ga.). BR&B served as co-lead counsel for the class in this price-fixing action. Settlements in this case totaled $50 million.
• In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1285 (D.D.C.). BR&B served as a member of the Executive Committee in this international price-fixing action. Settlements in this case totaled more than $1 billion.