Antitrust

Civil Antitrust Litigation

Effectively representing clients in high-stakes antitrust litigation.

Meet the team
WHY LOCKE LORD

In the area of civil antitrust litigation, Locke Lord has represented defendants in some of the largest antitrust class action cases pending around the country. We also have represented plaintiffs in seeking affirmative relief for anticompetitive conduct by suppliers, distributors and other competitors.

Our antitrust lawyers have litigated claims involving allegations of price fixing, market allocations, group boycotts, market rate/price manipulation, information exchanges and monopolization that were brought under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Robinson-Patman Act, California's Cartwright Act and a host of other state antitrust and unfair competition laws.

A sampling of these cases includes:

Price-Fixing Cases

  • In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation. Currently representing a defendant drywall manufacturer in class action price-fixing litigation arising out of the alleged conspiracy by U.S. drywall manufacturers to raise the prices of drywall. This MDL litigation has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, while an “opt-out” case filed by 12 large homebuilders was transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where it originally was filed.
  • In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation. Represented a defendant titanium dioxide manufacturer in three separate price-fixing cases against the leading manufacturers of titanium dioxide in the United States. These cases were pending in the U.S. District Courts in Maryland, the Southern District of Texas and Northern District of California.
  • In re Online Travel Company (OTC)/Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation. Represented two affiliated online travel reservation companies in a class action price-fixing case against all of the major online travel reservation companies and most of the major hotel chains. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the rates for hotel rooms that are booked using online travel reservation websites. In 2014, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint and later entered a Final Judgment dismissing the case. This MDL litigation was consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Market Rate/Price Manipulation Cases

  • In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation. Represented two related natural gas companies in class action antitrust litigation arising out of the alleged manipulation of natural gas price indices through the false reporting of natural gas transactions to the price index publishers. This MDL litigation was pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
  • In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation. Currently representing two related international financial institutions in class action antitrust litigation against numerous banks and financial services companies. The plaintiffs, which include bondholders, lenders, OTC investors and exchange investors, allege that our clients and other international banks violated the antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and similar benchmarks for U.S. dollar currency. Numerous cases filed by different groups of plaintiffs have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation. Currently representing two related international financial institutions in class action antitrust litigation against numerous international banks and financial services companies. The plaintiffs, which include direct investors, indirect purchasers, ERISA beneficiaries and foreign currency buyers, allege that our clients and other defendants violated the antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates for Trade Currencies. Over a dozen class action cases filed by different types of plaintiffs were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, while more than 1,300 opt-out plaintiffs also have filed their own related litigation.
  • Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado v. Bank of Montreal. Currently representing two related international financial institutions in class action antitrust litigation against several international banks and financial services companies. The plaintiffs allege that our client and the other defendants violated the Sherman Act and Commodities Exchange Act, among other claims, by conspiring to manipulate the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate (CDOR) benchmark used to price financial products.

Market Allocation Cases

  • Love Terminal Partners v. City of Dallas, Texas. Represented the nation’s largest airline in an antitrust action that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas by the leaseholders of land at Dallas Love Field Airport. The plaintiffs claimed that American Airlines and Southwest Airlines conspired to divide the market for flights to and from North Texas, thus allowing them to preserve their dominant market shares at DFW Airport and Love Field. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint and the action later was dismissed by the plaintiffs following an unsuccessful appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • Wheeler v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation. Represented plaintiff chicken farmers in a market allocation and price-fixing case against Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation and Tyson Foods. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into “no-poach” agreements and conspiring to allocate markets and lower prices paid for the services of chicken farmers in certain parts of Texas and bordering states. In a related suit, the plaintiffs alleged that Pilgrim’s Pride violated the Packers and Stockyards Act because its founder and former Chairman operated his own chicken farms under a more lucrative arrangement than the ones offered to other farmers. These cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and were settled on confidential terms following an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Group Boycott Cases

  • Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. Currently representing one of the nation’s largest distributors of dental products and supplies in antitrust litigation brought by another dental products distributor that alleges it was injured by a group boycott and price-fixing conspiracy involving our client and other dental equipment distributors and manufacturers. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2019), which ruled in our client’s favor on the issue of whether the alleged claims are covered by a contractual arbitration agreement. The case is now back in the U.S. Supreme Court on a second appeal involving a related arbitration issue, with oral arguments scheduled in December 2020. The underlying case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Information Exchange Cases

  • In re Compensation of Managerial, Professional, and Technical (MPT) Employees Antitrust Litigation. Represented one of the nation’s largest oil companies in class action wage-fixing litigation against all of the major oil companies in the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by exchanging confidential employee compensation information in furtherance of a conspiracy to reduce competition and suppress salaries for oil company employees. The defendants defeated class certification, and following two appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the case was settled. This MDL matter was consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Monopolization Cases

  • American Spirit and Cheer Essentials, Inc. v. Varsity Brands, LLC. Currently representing the founder and former CEO of Varsity Brands in an antitrust class action lawsuit now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through the monopolization of the competitive cheerleading market.

Robinson-Patman Act Cases

  • Security Data Supply, LLC v. Nortek Security and Control LLC. Represented the plaintiff in a price discrimination case filed against a security equipment manufacturer for violations of the Robinson-Patman Act and other anticompetitive conduct with regard to the pricing for security equipment. The case, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, was resolved favorably for our client when it entered into a confidential settlement with the defendants.
RELATED EXPERIENCE
RELATED EXPERIENCE