Firm’s Antitrust Cases
- In re OSB Antitrust Litigation
- In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
- In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation
- AFSCME v. GlaxoSmithkline (“Augmentin”)
- In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation
- In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
- In re Mercedes Benz Antitrust Litigation
- In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation
- In re Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation
- Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (“Paxil”)
- In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation
- J.B.D.L. Corp. d/b/a Beckett Apothecary v. Wyeth- Ayerst Laboratories, Inc. (Premarin)
- In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
- In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation
In re OSB Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa.)
SRKW is Lead Counsel for a certified class of purchasers of oriented strand board (“OSB”), which is a structural panel used in the construction of residential houses, specifically for floors, roofs and walls. SRKW alleged that the defendants, nine billion-dollar OSB manufacturers, violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to reduce the supply of OSB in the market, in order to raise and fix OSB prices. In August 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond (E.D. Pa.) certified the class and denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for the second time; our complaint was one of the first in nation to survive a challenge under the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Twombly. On the eve of trial, which was scheduled for June 3, 2008, SRKW settled the case on behalf of the class for more than $120 million.
Class Period: June 1, 2002 – February 24, 2006
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.)
SRKW served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified class of purchasers of corrugated sheets, which are used to make cardboard boxes. SRKW alleged that the defendants, all billion-dollar linerboard manufacturers, violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to reduce the supply of linerboard in the market, in order to raise and fix the prices of corrugated sheets and boxes, which are made from linerboard. U.S. District Court Judge Jan DuBois (E.D. Pa.) certified the class and the Third Circuit affirmed that decision in a landmark opinion. The case settled for $202 million — the largest-ever antitrust settlement in the Third Circuit.
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation
MDL 1200 (W.D. Pa.)
SRKW served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified class of purchasers of flat glass products, primarily used in the manufacture of automobiles. SRKW alleged that the defendants, all billion-dollar flat glass manufacturers, violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to raise and fix the prices of flat glass products. U.S. District Judge Ziegler (W.D. Pa.) certified the class. The Third Circuit later overruled the District Court, which had ruled in defendants’ favor on summary judgment, in a landmark opinion. The case settled on the eve of trial with the last defendant for a total of $120 million.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. GlaxoSmithkline (“Augumentin”)
No. 2-cv-442 (E.D. Va.)
SRKW represented a consumer in a class action concerning the brand-name drug Augmentin, an oral antibacterial drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) that accounts for $2 billion in sales per year. In essence, plaintiffs allege that GSK sought to prevent competition from generic versions of Augmentin by attempting to improperly obtain new patents on the drug and thereby extend the life of the older, valid patents. In 2004, the case settled as to all purchasers for $29 million.
Class Period: January 4, 2000 – April 30, 2004
In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation
SRKW filed a class action lawsuit against all major manufacturers of “dynamic random access memory” (“DRAM”), alleging that defendants conspired to fix the prices they charged for DRAM in the United States and throughout the world. The Defendants collectively control over 70% of the market. In the fall of 2001, Defendants reacted to low chip prices on the open market by agreeing to reduce supply in order to artificially raise prices. As part of their secret agreement, each defendant cut production by approximately 20%. Starting in December 2001 prices for DRAM rose dramatically. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation of the conspiracy to fix prices. Four executives at Infineon Technologies have already pled guilty to criminal charges in the case, and Infineon AG has agreed to pay $160 million in fines.
Plaintiffs’ counsel are currently reviewing over one million pages of discovery documents produced to date. SRKW is a member of the Executive Committee and is actively participating in the litigation.
Class Period: November 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
C.A. No. 01-1652 (D. N.J.)
SRKW filed suit on behalf of three employee benefit funds alleging violations of federal antitrust law, state antitrust and consumer protection acts, and state common law arising from the marketing of the brand-named prescription drug K-Dur, a sustained-release potassium chloride supplement prescribed to patients with cardiac problems. The amended complaint alleges that Schering-Plough, Wyeth Laboratories and Upsher-Smith agreed to settle patent infringement litigation in a way that precluded generic competition to Schering’s drug K-Dur. The amended complaint also alleges that Schering misrepresented information to the U.S. patent office in order to obtain the initial patent, and then engaged in sham litigation to falsely claim patent infringement and thus prevent competition from generic versions of the drug.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent approximately 40 cases to the District of New Jersey for consolidated proceedings. Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint, reviewed 350 boxes of discovery documents, and are engaged in depositions. The district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending. SRKW is co-lead counsel for the end-payor purchasers.
In December 2003, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that the agreements unlawfully restrained competition from generic drug manufacturers. That decision was reversed in March 2005 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Class Period: September 5, 1989 – present
In re Mercedes Benz Antitrust Litigation
Master File No. 99-4311 (D. N.J.)
This action is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or leased new Mercedes-Benz automobiles directly from Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. (“MBUSA”), or from one of the authorized dealers in MBUSA’s “New York Region,” during the period February 1992 through at least August 30, 1999. The complaint alleges that MBUSA participated in a conspiracy to raise and fix the price of new automobiles sold or leased in its New York Region. Defendants exchanged and discussed highly confidential, non-public information concerning historical and anticipated future pricing actions, in order to limit price competition and discounting.
SRKW is co-lead counsel. The consolidated complaint has already survived a motion to dismiss, and the court has certified a class of all purchasers. The parties are currently concluding expert discovery.
Class Period: February 1992 – August 30, 1999
In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1479 (D. N.J.)
SRKW filed a class action on behalf of a union health and welfare fund, alleging violations of federal antitrust law, state antitrust and consumer protection acts, and state common law arising from the marketing of the brand-named prescription drug Neurontin, a widely prescribed anti-convulsant. The complaint alleges that defendants listed certain patents with the Food and Drug Administration for the sole purpose of preventing generic competition. Defendants further filed sham patent infringement lawsuits against generic competitors, when defendants knew the generic formulations of Neurontin did not infringe any patent owned by defendants.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent approximately 22 cases to the District of New Jersey. The case has been stayed while defendants pursue an appeal of the underlying patent infringement action that they lost. SRKW is on the Executive Committee for the indirect purchasers’ group.
Class Period: January 16, 2000 – present
In re OxyContin Antitrust Litigation
No. 04 Civ. 314 (S.D.N.Y.)
SRKW filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of end-payor purchasers against the Purdue Pharma Company alleging violations of federal antitrust law and state antitrust and unfair and deceptive trade practices acts arising from the manufacture and marketing of OxyContin, a powerful pain-killer. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully obtained its patent for OxyContin and oxycodone hydrochloride c-r through intentional misrepresentations to the Patent and Trade Mark Office. Defendants further engaged in sham litigation to unlawfully enforce their patent, although they knew that the patent was unenforceable.
A number of different cases were consolidated and sent to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. SRKW is on the Executive Committee for the end-payor plaintiffs.
Class Period: December 1995 – present
Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (“Paxil”)
C.A. No. 03-4578 (E.D. Pa. 2004)
SRKW filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as co-counsel for direct purchasers of the drug Paxil, alleging that the manufacturer used baseless lawsuits to prevent competition from manufacturers of generic versions of Paxil, an anti-depressant drug. The direct purchaser case has settled for $100 million, and the end-payor case settled for $65 million.
More about the Settlement for direct purchasers and Settlement information for consumers and third-party payors
Class Period: January 1, 1998 – September 30, 2004
In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation
No. 03-CV-1516 (D. N.C.)
SRKW filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against all major manufacturers of “polyester staple fiber” (“PSF”) alleging that the defendants conspired to fix the prices they charged for PSF in the United States. Defendants collectively control over 85% of the market. During the period April 1, 1999 through July 31, 2001, Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to fix the price of PSF and allocate markets and customers in the U.S, causing the U.S. price for PSF to increase from 1999 through 2001. As a result of the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation, duPont admitted to participating in a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate customers, and agreed to cooperate in the investigation.
As a result of DuPonts’s cooperation, on September 13, 2002, Robert Dutton, a former sales manager of Defendant Nan Ya America, was indicted for conspiracy to fix prices and allocate customers. On October 31, 2002, Defendant KoSa and its former Business Director of Textile Staple, Troy Stanley, Sr., agreed to plead guilty to fixing prices and allocating customers. KoSa agreed to pay a criminal fine of $28.5 million, and Stanley agreed to pay a criminal fine of $20,000 and serve eight months in prison.
On September 19, 2003, the Court in the present civil litigation certified a settlement with Defendant DAK for $17.150 million. Plaintiffs continue to aggressively pursue this litigation against the remaining defendants. SRKW is actively involved in the litigation.
Class Period: April 1, 1999 – July 31, 2001
J.B.D.L. Corp. d/b/a Beckett Apothecary v. Wyeth- Ayerst Laboratories, Inc. (Premarin)
C.A. No. 01-cv-704 (S.D. Ohio)
SRKW represents a direct purchaser in a class action alleging antitrust violations over marketing of the drug Premarin, a brand-named drug used to alleviate symptoms of menopause. The complaint alleges that Wyeth used its monopoly power to control the formularies of pharmaceutical benefits managers and other large health care providers and prevent usage of the competitor drug Cenestin, marketed by Duramed Pharmaceuticals. On May 12, 2003, the court certified a nationwide class of direct purchasers. Discovery on the merits concluded, and trial was scheduled for August 2005. On June 13, 2005, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs are preparing an appeal. SRKW is co-lead counsel for the direct purchasers.
Class Period: March 24, 1999 – present
In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
C.A. No. 01-12239 (D. Mass.)
SRKW represents two union benefit funds in nationwide class actions against GlaxoSmithKline alleging the misuse of patent infringement litigation to prevent competition from generic versions of Relafen, a non steroidal anti inflammatory drug. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendant misrepresented information to the U.S. patent office in order to obtain the initial patent, and then engaged in sham litigation to falsely claim patent infringement and thus prevent competition from generic versions of the drug.
All cases were coordinated in the District of Massachusetts. The End-payor settlement for $75 million has been preliminarily approved by the court; the overall settlements for all classes of plaintiffs is likely to exceed $400 million. SRKW is co-lead counsel for the indirect purchasers.
More about the Settlement and filing a claim
Class Period: September 1, 1998 – June 30, 2003
In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation
C.A. No. 01-MD-1408 (E.D.N.Y.)
SRKW represents a union benefit fund in a nationwide consolidated class action against Barr Laboratories, Zeneca, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., and AstraZeneca PLC over tamoxifen, an important oncology drug for breast cancer. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to settle a patent infringement case with AstraZeneca making payments to Barr in exchange for Barr giving up its efforts to bring a generic drug to market, thus preventing generic competition to tamoxifen. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the matter is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
SRKW has played a prominent role in many significant antitrust actions. For example, it led the In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) action, which settled for $202 million — the largest ever antitrust settlement in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Firm currently serves as lead counsel in the In re OSB Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.), where a class of direct purchasers of OSB structural panels used in building homes was certified, and where our complaint was one of the first in nation to survive challenge under the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Twombly. The case is in the process of being settled for $120 million.
Other prominent antitrust cases the Firm has led include In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation (W.D. Pa.), which settled for $120 million, In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass.), where a tentative settlement for $75 million is currently before the court (total settlements in the case exceeded $400 million), and Stop and Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (E.D. Pa.), which settled for $100 million.