Antitrust

Antitrust

Most of our practice is devoted to the prosecution of antitrust violations. We have litigated antitrust cases in federal and state courts across the United States.

Federal and state antitrust laws are designed to protect and promote competition among businesses by prohibiting price fixing and other forms of anticompetitive conduct. Violations can range from straight forward agreements among competitors to raise prices above competitive prices to complicated schemes that affect relationships between different levels of a market.

Claims for damages under the federal antitrust laws are ordinarily limited to businesses or individuals who purchased goods or services directly from the person or company that violates the antitrust laws. Because most products pass through the hands of distributors, wholesalers or retailers before reaching the consumer, most claims for damages under the federal antitrust laws can only be brought by businesses that are at the top of the distribution chain. Many state antitrust laws, however, including the state laws of Minnesota, and neighboring states of South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska, also allow consumers and other end-users of products to receive compensation resulting from anticompetitive conduct, even if they purchased goods or services indirectly from the person or company that violates the antitrust laws.

In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.
and multiple state court actions):

Gustafson Gluek was appointed co-lead counsel for the indirect purchasers in this nationwide class action against both national and international memory-chip manufacturers.  This case dealt with the conspiracy surrounding the pricing of the memory chips commonly known as Dynamic Random Access Memory (or DRAM).  DRAM is used in thousands of devices on a daily basis, and Gustafson Gluek has been integral in achieving what is to date, one of the largest settlements on behalf of indirect purchasers in history.    

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Litigation, MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.)

Gustafson Gluek is a member of the executive committee working on this national antitrust class action against numerous financial institutions involved in the determination of the fees required to use credit cards at retail establishments. 

Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al.:

Gustafson Gluek is one of four interim co-lead counsel representing direct purchasers of U.S. Freight Forwarding Services. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in an international conspiracy to fix, inflate, and maintain new charges or prices for U.S. Freight Forwarding Services in violation of the antitrust laws. The case in currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Augmentin:

Gustafson Gluek was one of the counsel representing direct purchasers of Augmentin® against GlaxoSmithKline alleging that GSK violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly over Augmentin® and preventing entry of generic equivalents. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that GSK misled the United States Patent and Trademark Office resulting in the issuance of invalid patents that purportedly protected Augmentin®. Plaintiffs allege that these invalid patents prevented generic manufacturers from bringing less expensive generic versions of Augmentin® to market. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class members paid more for Augmentin® than they would have in the absence of the alleged anticompetitive conduct. This case ultimately settled for tens of millions of dollars for the direct purchasers of Augmentin®.

In re: Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation:

Dan Gustafson, senior partner and co-founder of Gustafson Gluek, was appointed as one of the Co-Lead Counsel in this MDL while a partner at his former firm. The claims arising in this MDL alleged that Defendants engaged in a continuing agreement, understanding and conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices for MSG and Nucleotides throughout the United States. Mr. Gustafson, in his capacity as Co-Lead Counsel represented direct purchasers of MSG and Nucleotides. After surviving motions for summary judgment brought by defendants, the case ultimately settled for over 120 million dollars., which was approved by the District of Minnesota.

Higgins v. Archer-Daniels Midland:

Gustafson Gluek was one of the counsel representing indirect purchasers of MSG and Nucleotides in various states throughout the country. Plaintiffs’ claims arose from allegations that Defendants engaged in a continuing agreement, understanding and conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices for MSG and Nucleotides throughout the United States. After suing the defendants in various state courts throughout the country, counsel for the Plaintiffs eventually reached a settlement for indirect purchases in twenty-four different states or U.S. territories. As part of the Settlement, which was approved in the Second Judicial District, New Mexico, defendants agreed to pay over 39 million dollars to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims.