Guin Stokes & Evans attorneys have served as Lead Counsel or in similar leadership positions on behalf of our business clients in a number of antitrust cases across the nation. Our cases may involve horizontal price-fixing, monopolization, price discrimination or other anti-competitive conduct and restraints of trade, and have involved construction products, health insurance, commodities, pesticides, and misuse of patent litigation to keep competitors out of the market in the pharmaceuticals industry. For more information regarding our antitrust practice, contact David Guin, Charles Watkins or Tammy Stokes.
Some of our cases have included the following:
In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ala.)
David Guin and Tammy Stokes are currently working on this national Multi-District Litigation (MDL) challenging the agreements among the 37 Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance companies across the United States not to compete against one another in their home states. Guin was appointed to serve as the Chair of the Written Submissions (Briefs) Committee, and Ms. Stokes was appointed to the Damages Committee.
In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
David Guin and Tammy Stokes currently serve among Class Counsel for a proposed class of Commercial End-Users of aluminum in this nationwide MDL alleging that Goldman Sachs and other investment banks took control of the London Metals Exchange and its metals warehouses, and then delayed deliveries of aluminum ingot out of the warehouses, thereby inflating the “Midwest Premium” charged to industrial and commercial purchasers of partially processed aluminum (e.g., extruded or rolled aluminum). The case is pending in the Southern District of New York.
In re OSB Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)
David Guin and Tammy Stokes served as Class Counsel in this case alleging price-fixing by the manufacturers of “oriented strand board,” a plywood substitute. The case settled for $125 million.
In re Synthroid® Marketing Litigation (N.D. Ill.)
Our firm was appointed Co-Lead Counsel for a class of third-party payors (“TPPs”), including health insurers, managed care organizations, and self-funded health benefit plans that alleged that the defendants’ illegal marketing practices cause the TPPs to be overcharged for Synthroid®, a thyroid medication.
United Wisconsin Services, Inc., et al. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., et al. (Lorazepam Marketing Litigation).
Our firm served as counsel for a proposed class of third-party payors (“TPPs”), includinghealth insurers, managed care organizations, and self-funded health benefit plans, that have alleged that the defendants have conspired to establish and maintain an illegal monopoly in the generic lorazepam and clorazepate dipotassium markets in violation ofantitrust laws. The TPPs claim damages caused by the absence of competition in the markets for lorazepam (generic form of Ativan®) and clorazepate dipotassium (generic form of Tranxene®), two anti-anxiety drugs.
Alexander v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 149 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1010 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
Real estate tax auction price fixing case under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act on behalf of 28,000 Cook County property owners settled in 2002 for approximately $2 million