Practice area: Antitrust and Illegal Sales Practices

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy has filed numerous antitrust actions recently based on allegations of price fixing in the international electronics field (Liquid Crystal Displays, high definition televisions and monitors, and other devices). If you believe you have been the victim of price fixing, you may contact us at TAKE ACTION to explore the legal issues.

Examples of our antitrust litigation include:

• Municipal Derivative Investment Antitrust Litigation
  Along with co-counsel, CPM represents Los Angeles and numerous public entities who purchased Guaranteed Investment Contracts (“GICs”) and other derivative investments. GICs and derivative investments are purchased from sellers of municipal securities through a competitive bidding process overseen by municipal securities brokers. They are purchased when public entities issue tax-exempt municipal bonds to raise funds to finance public works projects and have funds that are not immediately needed for the project. CPM’s investigation has uncovered, and the complaints allege, that the competitive bidding process is a sham as securities sellers and brokers in the derivative investment market have engaged in a conspiracy to allocate the market and rig the bidding process in violation of antitrust law and common law.
   
  Click here to view the complaint.  PDF, 1.5 MB
   
   
  
• Municipal Bond Insurance Antitrust Litigation
  CPM represents Los Angeles and numerous public entities who issued tax-exempt municipal bonds to raise funds to finance public works projects and were compelled to purchase insurance for those bond issuances. When a public entity issues bonds, its credit rating determines the interest it will pay to bond holders. To reduce the interest rate, public entities have had to purchase bond insurance to improve their credit worthiness (despite an historical default rate of less than 0.1 percent). CPM’s investigation has uncovered and the complaints allege that the bond insurance companies violated antitrust law and common law by conspiring to maintain a dual credit rating system that discriminates against public entities (versus private corporations), causing public entities to pay unusually high premiums to purchase unnecessary bond insurance, and failure of the bond insurance companies to disclose they made risky investments in the subprime market that has led to the downgrading of the bond insurers’ own credit ratings.
   
   
• International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1793 (N.D. Cal.)
  Date Filed: October 27, 2006
  On October 3, 2008, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California gave final approval to settlements entered into by CPM, together with Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, with Defendants Virgin Atlantic Airways, LTD and British Airways Plc worth approximately $204 million. The settlements resolve price-fixing claims of qualifying purchasers of long-haul air travel from Virgin Atlantic or British Airways, in both the United States and the United Kingdom under U.S. federal antitrust laws (1 U.S.C. §1) and the antitrust laws of the United Kingdom and European Union. Plaintiffs allege that the British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, which dominate the market for long-haul flights between the United States and United Kingdom and between the United Kingdom and other destinations, conspired to fix the fuel surcharges charged to passengers on such flights. Members of the settlement classes that submit claims will be refunded 33.3% of the fuel surcharges they paid on qualifying flights. In the September 26, 2008 hearing on final approval, Judge Breyer stated regarding the settlements: "It's a very good result. It’s a very good result for the class, so congratulations." For more information regarding the settlements and to make a claim, please visit https://www.airpassengerrefund.com or https://www.airpassengerrefund.co.uk.
  
  Recent Activity
  On October 3, 2008, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California gave final approval to settlements entered into by CPM, together with Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, with Defendants Virgin Atlantic Airways, LTD and British Airways Plc worth approximately $204 million. For more information regarding the settlements and to make a claim, please visit https://www.airpassengerrefund.com or https://www.airpassengerrefund.co.uk.
  
   
• SRAM (Static Random Access Memory) Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.)
  Date Filed October 17, 2006
  CPM is the court-appointed Lead Counsel on behalf of the proposed class of direct purchasers in this multidistrict class action against the major manufacturers of SRAM (Static Random Access Memory), including Samsung, Toshiba, Renesas, Hynix, Cypress, and Micron. Plaintiffs allege that from November 1996 through December 2005 the Defendant companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain the prices of SRAM, a memory chip used in a wide variety of computer and consumer electronics products, ranging from cell phones to high-end network servers. In 2005 alone, the Defendants’ worldwide SRAM sales were in excess of $2 billion. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims are based on Defendants’ alleged violation of the U.S. federal antitrust laws (15 U.S.C. § 1). The cases are currently pending before Judge Claudia Wilken in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
   
  Recent Activity
  Motion for Class Certification – Granted: On September 29, 2008, Judge Wilken granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify a Class of Direct Purchasers of SRAM, and appointed CPM as Lead Counsel for the class of direct purchasers. In her Class Certification Order, Judge Wilken said: “[T]he court finds that common issues predominate as to the element of antitrust violation,” and that “Plaintiff has advanced a plausible methodology that demonstrates that antitrust injury can be proved on a class-wide basis.” CPM will submit a proposed Notice to Class Members regarding the Class Certification Order by October 29, 2008.
  Motions to Dismiss – Denied: On February 14, 2008, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs defeated 11 of the 12 motions to dismiss that the Defendant SRAM manufacturers filed. In her order denying the Defendants’ motions, Judge Wilkin said: "the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts plausibly to suggest a § 1 price-fixing conspiracy."
   
  Documents:
  Consolidated Complaint  PDF, 1.4 MB
  Order denying motions to dismiss  PDF, 150K
  Motion for class certification  PDF, 150K
  Order granting motion for class certification  PDF, 124K
   
   
• Class Action Suit Alleges Price-Fixing Conspiracy in the Ocean Shipping Industry
  On April 17, 2008, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division raided the offices of a number of major ocean shipping companies, including Defendants Horizon and Crowley. Others received subpoenas for documents from the federal government. The subject of the federal investigation related to a pervasive conspiracy in the ocean shipping industry to artificially raise the price of shipping goods between the continental United States and its territories, primarily Puerto Rico, Guam and Hawaii. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, on behalf of a class of individuals and entities, filed suit in the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of California, accusing the major ocean shipping companies of violating federal antitrust laws and seeks the recovery of treble damages for the losses suffered by consumers. This conspiracy has enriched the Defendants while harming the American economy and American businesses. The suit accuses the Defendants of: (1) conspiring to fix fuel surcharges on domestic shipping rates, (2) conspiracy to decrease and stabilize shipping capacity, (3) conspiracy to fix domestic intermodal rates to shippers, and (4) a concerted and coordinated refusal to deal with freight forwarders. By conspiring to fix prices, the ocean shipping industry has deprived consumers of the right to free and fair competition.
   
   
• Webkinz Litigation
  Nuts for Candy v. Ganz Inc., et al.
  CV 08 2873 (Northern District of California)
  Date filed: June 09, 2008
  Complaint for Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act
  CPM has file a complaint on behalf of a proposed class of persons or entities in the United States who ordered Webkinz from Ganz Inc. on the condition that they also order products from Ganz’s "core line" of products. The complaint alleges that Ganz conditions the purchase of its popular Webkinz plush line toy with the a minimum $1,000 purchase of non-Webkinz "core" line products in violation of federal antitrust laws.
   
  Recent Activity
  Interim Lead Counsel Motion  PDF, 550K
   
  Documents
  Class Complaint  PDF, 730K
   
   
• NAND Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation
  Case No. 07-0086 (N.D. Cal.)
  Date Filed: January 5, 2007
  CPM, together with Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, is the court-appointed Lead Counsel on behalf of the proposed class of indirect purchasers in this class action against the major manufacturers of NAND Flash Memory, such as Samsung, Toshiba, Renesas, Hynix, and SanDisk. Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1999 the Defendant companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain the prices of NAND Flash Memory. In the past few years, this type of memory chip has become one of the most widely popularized memory chips, and it is used in a whole host of computer and consume electronics products, including Apple's iPhone and the removable memory cards for digital cameras and video game consoles. In 2006 alone, the Defendants' worldwide NAND Flash Memory sales were in excess of $10 billion. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on Defendants' alleged violation of the various state antitrust laws, such as California, Florida, New York, and Minnesota. The cases are currently pending before Judge Saundra Armstrong in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
   
  Recent Activity:
  On April 22, 2008, CPM and Zelle Hofmann filed an Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss filed by each of the Defendant NAND Flash Memory manufacturers. Judge Armstrong has taken the matter under submission.
   
  Documents:
  Consolidated Complaint  PDF, 1.2MB
   
   
• Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1913 (N.D. Cal.)
  Date Filed: November 6, 2007
  CPM, together Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, is the court-appointed lead counsel for a proposed class of direct purchasers of long-haul passenger air transportation. Plaintiffs allege that the major airlines providing transpacific flights to and from the United States conspired to fix the price of such flights, including associated fuel surcharges. Defendants in the case include Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, China Airlines, Eva Airways, Japan Airlines International, Malaysia Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Qantas Airways, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, and United Airlines. Plaintiffs allege that the price-fixing conspiracy by Defendants violated U.S. federal antitrust law (1 U.S.C. § 1) [and are investigating whether the conduct also violated the antitrust laws of other nations].
  
  Recent Activity
  Amended Complaint Filed in Transpacific Air Passenger Price Fixing Case. On August 5, 2009 Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and its co-counsel filed an amended complaint in the international class action In re Transpacific Air Passenger Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1913. The amended complaint sets forth extensive details of the operation of a cartel that fixed the prices which passengers paid for air transportation between the United States and Asian/Oceania destinations including Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands. The alleged conspiracy began January 1, 2000 and continues to the present.
   
  Documents
  Amended Complaint  PDF, 484K
  
   
   
• Pacific Noncontiguous Ocean Shipping Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1972 (district assignment pending)
  Date Filed: May 9, 2008
  CPM, with co-counsel, have filed two complaints on behalf of proposed classes of direct purchasers of domestic ocean shipping services between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii (“the Hawaii Trade”) and between the U.S. mainland and Guam (“the Guam Trade”). These complaints-which CPM is seeking to have consolidated along with related complaints brought by other plaintiffs-allege that the two carriers that dominate the Hawaii and Guam Trades, Matson Navigation and Horizon Lines, have conspired to fix the price of domestic ocean shipping in the two trades in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).
  
  Recent Activity
  CPM has filed a motion for transfer to the Northern District of California for consolidation of all related cases. The motion will be heard July 31, 2008.
  
  Documents
  Guam Trade Complaint  PDF, 1.4 MB
  Hawaii Trade Complaint  PDF, 1.1 MB
  Motion for Transfer  PDF, 80K
     
   
• Puerto Rico Ocean Shipping Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1960 (district assignment pending)
  Date filed: April 23, 2008
  CPM, with co-counsel, have filed a complaint of behalf of proposed class of direct purchasers of domestic ocean shipping services between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (“the Puerto Rico Trade”). The complaint-which CPM is seeking to have consolidated with related complaints brought by other plaintiffs-alleges that the carriers that dominate the Puerto Rico Trade, Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner Services, and Trailer Bridge, have conspired to fix the price of domestic ocean shipping in the Puerto Rico Trade in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).
  
  Recent Activity
  CPM has filed a motion for transfer to the Southern District of Florida for consolidation of all related cases. The motion will be heard July 31, 2008.
   
  Documents
  Isaac Industries Complaint  PDF, 964K
  Motion for Transfer  PDF, 88K
   
   
• Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1775 (E.D.N.Y,)
  Date Filed: June 27, 2006
  CPM, with co-counsel, is the court-appointed lead counsel for a proposed class of U.S. indirect purchasers of international air freight services. The case alleges that the providers of international air freight services conspired to fix the prices of such services, including fuel surcharges. The case names almost forty international air freight carriers as defendants. The claims of the United States indirect purchasers is brought under the antitrust laws and consumer protection laws of various U.S. states. On April 4, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement worth over $85 million with defendants Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss International Air Lines, Ltd. For information regarding the proposed settlement, please visit http://www.aircargosettlement.com.
  
  Recent Activity
  On April 4, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and associated notice program. The hearing on final approval of the proposed settlements will take place on December 12, 2008. For more information, please see the website above.
  
  Documents
  Consolidated Complaint  PDF, 328K
  Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement
   PDF, 36K
     
   
• Freight Forwarders Antitrust Litigation
  No. CV 08-0042 (E.D.N.Y.)
  Date Filed: January 3, 2008
  CPM, with co-counsel, have filed a complaint on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of freight forwarding services in the United States. “Freight forwarding services” includes services relating to the organization of transportation of items via air, ship, rail, and truck, both nationally and internationally. The complaint alleges that the major providers of freight forwarding services conspired to fix the prices of such services in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).
  
  Documents
  Precision Associates Complaint  PDF, 950K
   
   
• LTL Shipping Service Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1895 (N.D. Ga.)
  Date filed: October 18, 2007
  CPM, with co-counsel, represent a proposed class of direct purchasers of less-than-truckload (“LTL”) freight shipping services. The case alleges that all the national and regional trucking freight carrier conglomerates conspired to fix fuel surcharges in violation of U.S. federal antitrust law (15 U.S.C. § 1).
   
  Documents
  Consolidated Complaint  PDF, 404K
  
   
  
• Hip And Knee Implant Marketing Litigation
  MDL No. 1973 (district assignment pending)
  Date filed: March 24, 2008
  CPM, with co-counsel, has filed two complaints on behalf of proposed classes of persons who underwent hip or knee implant surgery. The complaints allege that the major manufacturers of hip and knee implants have engaged in a pervasive kickback scheme, using phony consulting agreements with orthopaedic surgeons, to improperly funnel money to doctors and hospitals in return for choosing the manufacturer’s device during surgeries. This scheme artificially raised the costs of hip or knee implants paid for by members of the proposed class in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
   
  Recent Activity
  CPM has made a motion to transfer all related cases to the Northern District of California for consolidation. The motion will be heard on July 31, 2008.
   
  Documents
  Stryker Complaint  PDF, 1MB
  Zimmer Complaint  PDF, 1MB
  Motion for Transfer  PDF, 1MB
   
   
• Kopies, Inc. et al vs. Eastman Kodak Co.
  Clv. No. C94-0524 JLQ (N.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust class action by copier service firms against parts manufacturer for illegal tying of products and services. (Class certified, 1994; settlement finally approved, 1999)
   
• In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1092 and Master File No. C95-2963 FMS (N.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust class action against Archer-Daniels Midland Co. and others for conspiracy to fix prices and restrain trade. (Class certified, 1996, settled in part and on appeal, 1998)
   
• In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation
  MDL No. 1311 (N.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust class action against several methionine manufacturers for conspiracy to fix the prices of and allocate the markets for methionine.
   
• In re Beer Antitrust Litigation
  No. 94-20644 SW (N.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust class action on behalf of specialty beer brewers against Anheuser-Busch, Inc. for attempt to monopolize U.S. beer industry by denying access to distribution channels.
   
• In re Commercial Tissue Products Public Entity Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
  Coordinated Proceedings 4027
  County of San Mateo v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
  San Francisco County Superior Court No. 989138
  Antitrust class action on behalf of class of public entity consumers of commercial sanitary paper products against alleged price-fixing conspiracy among producers. (Appointed co-lead counsel for public entity class, 1998)
   
• In re Sodium Gluconate Antitrust Litigation
  MDL 1226
  Chemical Distribution, Inc. v. AKZO Nobel Chemicals, BV
  No. 97-4142 CW (N.D. Cal.)
  Chemical Distribution, Inc. v. Roquette Freres
  No. 98-00070 (N.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust class actions for price fixing of sodium gluconate, an industrial cleaning agent. (Class certified, 1998; settlement finally approved, 1999)
   
• Livingston v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.
  No. C94-1377 MHP (N.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust class action under Sherman Act by purchasers of Toyota vehicles for secret rebates. (Settled 1997)
   
• Truta v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
  193 Cal.App.3d 802 (1987)
  Class action for antitrust and unfair business practices.
   
• E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Energy Services, et al., 03-5624 (E.D. Cal.)
  Antitrust action against natural gas merchants for manipulating prices charged to end users for natural gas.
   
• Dry Creek Corporation v. El Paso Corporation, JCCP 4221 (Super. Ct. San Diego Cty.). Antitrust action against El Paso for withholding natural gas from California in order to drive up prices.