menu

Competition Law



In the United States, anti-competitive behaviour, such as price fixing, market allocation, and bid rigging, have long been considered illegal. The laws prohibiting such conduct seek to ensure that our markets operate by rules of fair play, free of collusion and manipulation. Those injured by such anti-competitive practices have long been able to recover for their injuries in the United States.

For more than 40 years, Kaplan Fox has been a leader representing those injured by violations of the antitrust laws, recovering billions of dollars for its clients. Based in New York and with offices throughout the United States, Kaplan Fox is regularly chosen by courts across the nation to act as lead or co-lead counsel in antitrust class and private actions, and the firm is widely recognized for its effective handling of antitrust actions. For example, Kaplan Fox has been appointed as co-lead counsel in In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig. (see Dec. 4, 2006 Practice and Procedure Order Number 2, ECF No. 232 in Case 1:06-md-1775-JG-VVP) (E.D.N.Y.)), In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Antitrust Litig. (see June 26, 2014 Order Appointing Liaison Counsel and Interim Class Counsel) ECF No. 36 in Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB), In re Cast Iron Soil Pipe & Fittings Antitrust Litig. (see May 20, 2014 Consolidation and Designation of Counsel Order (ECF No. 67) in Case 1:14-md-2508-HSM-WBC (E.D. Tenn.)), In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings Antitrust Litig. (see May 15, 2012 Order (ECF No. 61) in Case 3:12-cv-00169-AET-LHG (D.N.J.)), and In re Pool Prods. Dist. Mkt. Antitrust Litig. (see May 29, 2012 Order (ECF No. 79) in MDL No. 2328 (E.D. La.)).

In addition, Kaplan Fox lawyers routinely receive accolades for their antitrust experience from their peers in the plaintiffs and defense bars. In his 2004 book Courting Justice, renowned litigator David Boies summed up the firm's reputation by stating that "Bob Kaplan and his partner Greg Arenson were excellent lawyers with whom I had worked before." Greg Arenson’s economics background has provided a basis for his recognized expertise in handling economic issues in antitrust cases both at class certification and on the merits, and he indeed has been asked in several cases in which Kaplan Fox has not been co-lead counsel to be involved with  such issues and economic experts .  See, e.g., In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig., 256 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2009). 

In 2013, Kaplan Fox was chosen by the National Law Journal for its "Litigation Boutique Hot List" Many of the firm's lawyers have been designated numerous times by their peers as New York and Pennsylvania "Super Lawyers" or "Super Lawyers- Rising Stars" for their antitrust, securities, and class-action litigation work. The firm has been involved in some of the largest and most important antitrust cases in history, litigating issues which resulted in significant changes in antitrust law. Kaplan Fox's significant antitrust class action achievements include:

  • In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 06-md-1775 (JG) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y.): Kaplan Fox has been appointed one of four co-lead counsel for direct purchasers of airfreight shipping services in this pending antitrust class action against the world's major providers of air cargo services. To date, Kaplan Fox and its co-counsel have achieved more than $1 billion in settlements. As co-lead counsel, Kaplan Fox is actively involved in all aspects of this complicated case, which has included extensive discovery and class certification proceedings. Mr. Arenson led plaintiffs' three-day evidentiary hearing on class certification, which resulted in certification of the class and  exclusion of certain portions of defendants' experts' testimony. See In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litig., No. 06-MD-1775, 2014 WL 7882100 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2014), adopted 2015 WL 5093503 (E.D.N.Y.  July 10, 2015) Recently, Judge John Gleeson denied the remaining four defendants’ motions for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment (argued by Mr. Kaplan) to strike many of defendants’ affirmative defenses. The case is set for trial on March 21, 2016.

 

  • In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1087 (C.D. Ill.): Kaplan Fox was one of three co-lead counsel representing a class of direct purchasers alleging that the Archer Daniels Midland Company and a number of its competitors conspired to fix the price of high fructose com syrup. Kaplan Fox was actively involved in all aspects of this case from its inception to the eve of trial. In particular, after the district court had granted summary judgment for the defendants, Mr. Gregory Arenson successfully argued for reversal   before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Judge Richard A. Posner writing a seminal antitrust opinion. See In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002). The case later settled shortly before trial with Kaplan Fox and its co-counsel obtaining $531 million for the class.  At the end of the Fructose case, presiding judge Michael H. Mihm complimented plaintiffs' lead counsel, including Messrs. Kaplan and Arenson, stating,  "I've said many times during this litigation that you and the attorneys who represented the defendants here are as good as it gets. Very professional. At least in my presence or in my contacts with you, you've always been civil. You've always been cutting to the chase and not wasting my time or each other's time or adding to the cost of the litigation." 

 

  • In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., MDL 1200 (W.D. Pa.): Kaplan Fox was one of four co-lead counsel in a case against the leading manufacturers of flat glass (used in everything from house windows to car windshields). The firm was significantly involved in all aspects of the case. Mr. Kaplan successfully argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse summary judgment for defendants ,  and the Third Circuit issued a groundbreaking summary judgment opinion that is routinely cited in antitrust cases throughout the federal courts. See In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d 350 (3d. Cir. 2004).  This case also settled on the eve of trial, with Kaplan Fox and its co-counsel recovering a total of $121 million for the class. 

 

  • In re Neurontin Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1479, Master File No. 02-1390 (D.N.J.):Kaplan Fox was one of two co-lead counsel in this hard-fought delayed-generic entry case against Pfizer and Warner-Lambert. The case lasted over twelve years and  settled in 2014 for $190 million shortly before trial. There were numerous published decisions on a wide array of important issues in this particular type of antitrust litigation.  Kaplan Fox’s efforts were led by partner Richard Kilsheimer, who has extensive experience in antitrust cases generally. 

 

The firm has also recovered millions of dollars for clients in private antitrust cases, including In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 1:05-md-01720-MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y.), in which the firm represented a group of retail merchants.,  The firm is currently representing plaintiffs in private antitrust actions alleging that manufacturers of packaged seafood, including Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, d/b/a Chicken of the Sea, King Oscar, Inc., Bumble Bee Foods, LLC f/k/a Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, and StarKist Co. conspired in violation of antitrust laws.  and fix the prices of packaged seafood sold to customers in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2000, to the present. Affiliated Foods, Inc., Associated Grocers of New England, Inc., North Central Distributors, LLC, Cash-Wa Distributing Co. of Kearney, Inc., URM Stores, Inc., Western Family Foods, Inc., and Associated Food Stores, Inc. v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, d/b/a Chicken of the Sea, King Oscar, Inc., Bumble Bee Foods, LLC f/k/a Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, and StarKist Co., No. 15-cv-4312 , No. 15-cv-3815 , No. 15-cv-4187, No. 15-cv-4667 (N.D. Cal.).