CLO Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
LGN filed a nationwide antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf of businesses that borrowed funds from lenders that conspired to artificially inflate credit spread adjustments (“CSAs”) in borrowers’ loan amendments during the lead-up to the cessation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). The lawsuit alleges that the conspiracy began in or around January 2023 when approximately 70 equity investors in collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”)—the largest lenders to the class of borrowers—agreed during a conference call organized by Defendant Eagle Point to form a working group to monitor leveraged loan amendments and pressure CLO managers into rejecting amendments that included a CSA below the rate recommended by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (“ARRC”). The result: these borrowers paid inflated interest rates. 

Background
Leveraged loans are secured loans issued to non-investment grade U.S. companies that borrow the funds to finance a range of activities, such as acquisitions and stock buybacks. Historically, interest rates for leveraged loans were indexed to USD LIBOR. A series of scandals led the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority to determine that LIBOR, including USD LIBOR, would be discontinued. In 2021, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York established the ARRC to recommend a replacement for USD LIBOR, which became known as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”). Leveraged loans that were indexed to USD LIBOR would need to transition to SOFR once LIBOR ceased being published, and the ARRC recommended several CSAs designed for amendments to USD LIBOR-based loans to account for historical differences between the two benchmark rates.

Competitive market forces initially drove CSAs for leveraged loans below the ARRC-recommended levels. As a result, and as alleged in the complaint, the CLO equity investor Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired during the LIBOR-to-SOFR transition to artificially inflate the CSAs that borrowers paid on their leveraged loans. The lawsuit, which is the first antitrust lawsuit filed against CLO equity investors, was filed in the United States District of Connecticut on January 21, 2026, and is captioned CentralSquare Technologies LLC, et al. v. Eagle Point Credit Company Inc., et al., Case No. _____ (D. Conn.).

Who Are the CLO Equity Investor Defendants?

The CLO Equity Investor Defendants include:

  • Eagle Point Credit Company Inc.
  • Eagle Point Credit Management LLC
  • Eagle Point Income Management LLC 
  • Eagle Point Institutional Income Fund
  • Eagle Point Income Company Inc. 
  • Capra Ibex Advisors, LLC
  • Capra Ibex Credit Opportunities, LLC 
  • Capra Credit Management, LLC
  • Fair Oaks Income Limited
  • Fair Oaks Capital LLC
  • Livermore Investments Group Limited 
  • Eldridge Industries, LLC 
  • Eldridge Structured Credit Advisers, LLC
  • Panagram Capital, LLC 
  • Pearl Diver Credit Company Inc.
  • Pearl Diver Capital LLP
  • John Doe Clo Equity Investors 1–99

Contact:

Brian Clark
bdclark@locklaw.com

Kyle Pozan
kjpozan@locklaw.com

Consuela Abotsi-Kowu
cmabotsi-kowu@locklaw.com 

Or Call: 612-339-6900

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Optimal Blue Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
LGN represents a class of plaintiffs who entered into a residential mortgage for their primary residence with one of the companies who originate mortgage loans (“Loan Originator Defendants”) listed below. The lawsuit alleges that Optimal Blue, a mortgage information sharing program, and Loan Originator Defendants unlawfully agreed to use software created by Optimal Blue in order to artificially inflate mortgage prices for home purchasers across the United States.

Background
Residential mortgages have long been the primary financial device enabling Americans to purchase homes. Most U.S. home buyers depend on residential mortgages to purchase their home, resulting in residential mortgage debt making up around 70% of U.S. consumer debt.

As alleged in the complaint, the Loan Originator Defendants artificially inflated mortgage prices by sharing competitively sensitive and non-public pricing information and data with a centralized entity—Optimal Blue—rather than competing on price. Loan Originator Defendants share granular, real-time data about every component of their residential mortgage pricing using Optimal Blue’s “Competitive Analytics” and “Competitive Data License” tools (collectively, the “Business Analytics Tools”), launched in 2019.

mortgage rate price fixing case

The Business Analytics Tools allow loan originators to compare their mortgage prices with their competitors and collectively coordinate and maintain increases to mortgage prices. As a result, borrowers face higher rates and fees than they would in a competitive market.

The lawsuit, which is the first antitrust price-fixing lawsuit filed against Optimal Blue, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on October 3, 2025, and is captioned Angel D. Mendez, Seth Ogilvie, Ori Wasserburg, and Nancy Donacki-Thompson Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Optimal Blue, LLC, ____.

Who Are the Loan Originator Defendants?

The Loan Originator Defendants include:

  • Rocket Mortgage, LLC
  • United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Loandepot.com
  • Bank of America
  • Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation
  • U.S. Bank National Association
  • Freedom Mortgage Corporation
  • Guaranteed Rate, Inc.
  • NewRez, LLC
  • CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC
  • First Community Mortgage, Inc.
  • Movement Mortgage, LLC
  • PennyMac Loan Services, LLC
  • Home Point Financial Corporation
  • Guild Mortgage Company, LLC
  • Citibank, N.A.
  • Flagstar Bank, N.A.
  • New American Funding, LLC
  • Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
  • CMG Mortgage, Inc.
  • AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation
  • Better Mortgage Corporation
  • Firstbank
  • Churchill Mortgage Corporation
  • Beeline Loans, Inc.

Were you affected by the alleged residential mortgage pricing conspiracy?

If you entered into a residential mortgage for your home between September 2021 and today, you may have paid an inflated mortgage price. Please contact us for more information by clicking HERE.

Contact
If you would like to discuss your legal options, please fill out the form below or directly contact Brian Clark, Kyle Pozan, or Arielle Wagner at bdclark@locklaw.com, kjpozan@locklaw.com, aswagner@locklaw.com or at 612-339-6900.

Articles & Documents
Complaint
Bloomberg Law Article
Reuters Article
Law360 Article

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Address(Required)

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Protected: Anne Arundel Data Breach Investigation

/by

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen (“LGN”) is Co-Lead Counsel for a class of consumers, plumbers, electricians, and other contractors who bought PVC Pipe or PVC Fittings (collectively called PVC Pipe Systems) from a distributor or home improvement store. LGN’s complaint alleges that PVC Pipes and Fittings were price-fixed because the companies that make PVC Pipes (called Converters) conspired with an industry reporting service called OPIS to increase their price starting at least as early as 2020 through the present.

The lawsuit alleges: “PVC Pipe System prices exploded in 2020. The nation’s leading PVC Pipe System manufacturers—the Converter Defendants—blamed the price explosion on COVID-19 and supply chain chaos. They were lying. The astronomical price increases resulted from an elaborate price-fixing Conspiracy, not pandemic disruptions. Working hand-in-glove with industry reporting service, Defendant OPIS, Converter Defendants weaponized temporary shocks to the supply of PVC resin—the primary raw material in PVC Pipe Systems—as cover to orchestrate a brazen price-fixing scheme. The results were staggering: PVC Pipe System prices quadrupled, generating windfall profits while devasting pipe purchasers nationwide.”

PVC Pipe Lawsuit

The lawsuit further alleges that “OPIS not only facilitated, but it also directly participated in,the fixing of PVC Pipe System prices. Until recently, casual observers might have viewed OPIS as simply providing information exchange of data and signaling between competitors. However, OPIS has produced thousands of pages of handwritten notes, over 8,000 text messages, and thousands of emails from its employee Donna Todd. These documents reveal classic antitrust violations: direct evidence of communications among Converter Defendants’—ostensibly competitors—to agree on and fix PVC Pipe System prices.”

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the largest distributors of the PVC Pipe Systems in the United States conspired with Defendants to implement the alleged Conspiracy. The Co-Conspirator Distributors—Core & Main, Ferguson, Fortiline, Hajoca, Porter Pipe, and United Pipe—shared a powerful economic interest with the Converter Defendants in artificially inflating PVC Pipe Systems prices: enhanced profits and financial stability.

What are PVC Pipe Systems?
PVC Pipe Systems consist of two necessary and complementary components: (1) PVC Pipes and (2) PVC Fittings that connect PVC Pipe segments into piping systems. The PVC Pipe Systems industry centers on three major applications: (1) Municipal Pipe, for drinking water and sewer systems (blue and green pipes), (2) Plumbing Pipe, for residential and commercial drain, waste, or vent (“DWV”) pipe systems (typically white pipes), and (3) Conduit Pipe, for protecting electrical wires (usually gray pipes). Common PVC Fittings include couplings and unions, elbows, tees, crosses, caps and plugs, adapters and bushings, nipples, and flanges.

Details on Parties and the Complaint
The Class that LGN represents is called the NCSP Class, which stands for Non-Converter Seller Purchasers. In other words, NCSP Class members are those who bought PVC Pipes or Fittings from a distributor or home improvement store, with some minor exceptions, such as consumers, plumbers, electricians, and other contractors.

The Defendants are OPIS, Atkore, Cantex, Charlotte Pipe, Cresline, Diamond Plastics IPEX/Multi Fittings, JM Eagle, National Pipe, Northern Pipe, Otter Tail, Prime Conduit, Sanderson Pipe, Southern Pipe, Westlake (NAPCO), and Vinyltech.

Settlements
The NCSP Class reached a settlement with Defendant OPIS on May 16, 2025. The Court granted Preliminary Approval to this settlement on July 15, 2025. NCSP Co-Lead Counsel are implementing the Court-ordered plan of notice to inform NCSP Class members of the settlement.

How Can I Get Involved?
If you are a consumer, plumber, electrician, or other contractor who purchased PVC Pipes or Fittings, then you may reach out to us to become involved in the case.  Click HERE .

Articles & Documents
Second Consolidated Complaint
Leadership Order
Reuters Article – Major PVC pipe makers accused of price-fixing in contractor’s lawsuit
Bloomberg Article – Atkore, Other Manufacturers Hit With PVC Pipes Price-Fixing Case

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please use the form or contact Brian Clark or Simeon Morbey

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Which State do you Currently Reside?(Required)

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Allianz Life Investigation

/by

Background

Allianz Life is a global life insurance provider offering policies for individuals across the country. The company holds the data of millions of individuals as part of its business.    

What Happened

On July 25, 2025, Allianz Life notified government offices that its system was breached by threat actors on July 16, 2025. They reported their third-party cloud-based customer information system was breached by hackers, who took information on more than 1.4 million customers of Allianz Life. The breached data includes Social Security numbers, policy and contract numbers, dates of birth, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.

Users Face New Harms

The disclosure of personal identifying information opens users up to elevated risks of identity theft. Scammers use such information to open new credit accounts, obtain loans, or get even more personal information with more personal phishing schemes.

The disclosure of your personal information may violate your rights under various laws. Contact us today to discuss whether your information may have been exposed and how to protect yourself.  

Allianz Life

Victims now face serious damage from the loss of this sensitive information like fraud and identity theft. If you believe your information has been disclosed by Allianz Life, submit the form below to learn more about what you can do.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Were/are you a customer of Allianz Life?
Did you receive notice from Allianz Life that your information was exposed?
Do you believe your information was exposed?

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Frozen Potato Price-Fixing Lawsuit

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP was the first to file an antitrust class action lawsuit against defendants Lamb Weston, McCain Foods, J.R. Simplot, and Cavendish Farms for alleged price-fixing in the market for frozen potato products such as french fries, hash browns, and tater tots. 

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that the four companies exchanged competitively sensitive information and conspired to inflate prices for Frozen Potato Products, causing their customers to pay more for those products.

Details on the Parties and the Complaint
The case is Redner’s Markets, Inc. v.  Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. et al., Case 1:24-cv-11801 (N.D. Ill.) and is brought by plaintiff Redner’s Markets, Inc. on behalf of itself and a proposed class of persons and entities that purchased frozen potato products directly from one or more of the defendants, within the United States, anytime since at least January 1, 2021. A copy of the complaint can be found below.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Frozen Potato Price-Fixing, french fries, hash browns, tater tots, lawsuit, price-fixing, potato cartel

Contact

If you have information relevant to this important litigation, please contact us via the form or email us at potatoinvestigation@locklaw.com

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation

/by

Background

The U.S. market for construction equipment rental is substantial and growing. Individuals and companies often rent rather than purchase the equipment they need for construction projects because renting is usually more affordable, especially for smaller companies or for short-term projects. Renting also allows companies to access newer, more up-to-date equipment models.

Beginning in at least 2021, the largest construction equipment rental companies substantially raised rental prices and have kept them at an elevated level since. The lawsuit alleges that these rental equipment companies coordinated with Rouse Services LLC, and Rouse’s parent, RB Global, to restrain competition and share competitively sensitive information in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants agreed to exchange competitively sensitive, non-public data, such as rental invoices and real-time inventory data, to coordinate their pricing through Rouse in order to maximize rental rates. Rouse launched its Rental Insights (“RRI”) product in 2011. Since then, the number of companies using its system has increased to approximately 400, including all major industry players and at least 60% of the North American rental equipment market.

The lawsuit alleges that not only does Rouse collect competitively sensitive information from all its clients – which it uses to set prices across rental companies – it also explicitly tells rental companies who else is sharing their data and which pricing strategies they are employing. One rental equipment defendant executive admitted: “We’re all using the same data.” Another explained that Rouse “essentially standardized a lot of price competition in the industry.”

The lawsuit alleges that the construction equipment rental industry is particularly susceptible to antitrust conspiracies due to increasing consolidation within the industry. As the dominant players holding the majority of market share for construction equipment rentals, the rental equipment company defendants dictate the prices offered to individuals and companies who rent construction equipment.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 17, 2025, and is captioned Kris Swanson Construction LLC v. RB Global, Inc.; et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04236.

Do you rent construction equipment?

If you rent or have rented construction equipment since March 31, 2021 and are located in the United States, please contact us.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Steve Teti or Joe Bourne at sjteti@locklaw.com, jcbourne@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

Complaint

SaveOnSP and PrudentRx

/by

Overview
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) like Express Scripts and Caremark have partnered with secretive third party companies, such as SaveOnSP and PrudentRx, to siphon off patient copay assistance meant to help patients afford their prescription drugs and to foist thousands of dollars of additional healthcare costs onto patients. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) has filed suit against these programs for violating federal fraud and insurance laws, and for increasing healthcare costs for targeted patients.

Background

The Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) provides safeguards against excess healthcare costs for patients in the U.S., including an upper limit on patients’ copay and coinsurance obligations and a maximum that a patient can be forced to pay out-of-pocket each year. Still, prescription drug costs threaten to undermine these protections. PBMs negotiate steep discounts off of drugs’ list prices for the benefit of health plans, but refuse to share those discounts with patients. The result is disproportionately high costs for patients whose need life-saving, but expensive, medications.

click to help us fight back now. get started

Studies lay bare the disastrous effects of PBMs’ efforts to shift healthcare costs to patients: a majority of patients on employer-sponsored health plans report delaying filling prescriptions, rationing medications, or skipping prescribed therapy altogether due to cost. Three quarters of patients cannot afford prescriptions that cost $250 or more out of pocket. To help ensure patients can access necessary and life-saving medications, manufacturers of drugs with high patient costs offer patient assistance programs. These programs cover patients’ out-of-pocket costs up to a set amount. These patient assistance programs, traditionally, have helped reduce the cost burdens of patients with complex and expensive medical conditions.

Recently, PBMs have partnered with companies like SaveOnSP and PrudentRx to evade the ACA’s protections and nullify the relief that patient assistance programs provide. These companies claim to have found a loophole in the ACA: they target expensive medications with the most generous patient assistance programs and designate those drugs “non-essential health benefits,” regardless of how essential the medications may be to a patient’s health. This, they claim, allows health plans to charge copays and coinsurance in excess of the ACA’s limits, and to refuse to count those payments—by patients or patient assistance programs—towards patients’ out-of-pocket limits.

Once retained by a health plan, SaveOnSP and PrudentRx target patients who are on these drugs and increase their out-of-pocket obligations to hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a

month. They then coerce patients to agree to participate in their programs with misleading promises of $0 copays if they participate and the threat of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs if they do not. When patients sign up, these patient assistance raiders drain the maximum amount of funding available from patient assistance programs, and then give that assistance to insurers, not patients.

Targeted patients, meanwhile, lose the benefit of patient assistance. SaveOnSP and PrudentRX refuse to count the large patient assistance payments they collect towards patient’s out-of-pocket obligations. As a result, targeted patients end up having to pay thousands of dollars in additional medical costs during the year that otherwise would have been paid by their insurer after they reached their maximum out-of-pocket limits.


Details of the Cases

LGN has filed two lawsuits against healthcare industry companies, alleging that those companies steal patient copay assistance funds, violate the ACA, and force patients to incur excess healthcare costs.

Gluesing v. PrudentRx LLC, et al. (filed in federal court in Rhode Island) seeks to hold PrudentRx, LLC and Caremark Rx LLC accountable for a fraudulent scheme to force patients to pay thousands more for their health insurance by depriving patients of the benefit of patient copay assistance. On February 6, 2025, the court appointed LGN to serve as interim lead class counsel in this important litigation.

Gurwitch v. Save On SP, LLC, et al. (filed in federal Court in the Northern District of New York) seeks to hold Save On SP LLC; Express Scripts, Inc.; and Accredo Health Services, Inc. accountable for a similar scheme.

Contact
If you have been impacted by programs like SaveOnSP or PrudentRx and would like to get involved, please submit your information below or reach out to Brian Clark or Kristie LaSalle.

Documents
Complaint – Gluesing v. PrudentRx LLC, et al.
Complaint – Gurwitch v. Save On SP, LLC, et al

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

GoodRx Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP has filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against generic drug coupon provider GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus. The lawsuit challenges those defendants’ conduct in artificially suppressing prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to independent pharmacies, and increasing fees charged to independent pharmacies, through the use of GoodRx-supplied prices. The defendants’ conduct has caused financial harm to independent pharmacies throughout the country.

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that GoodRx and the PBM defendants conspired to suppress reimbursement rates and increase fees charged to independent pharmacies on all GoodRx-related transactions through GoodRx’s “integrated savings program.” The GoodRx integrated savings program uses GoodRx’s pricing algorithm, and real-time pricing information from PBMs, to determine prices of generic drug transactions—and to enrich GoodRx and the PBMs at the expense of independent pharmacies.

Click to submit your information now! Get started

The lawsuit seeks to recover the damages incurred by independent pharmacies throughout the United States, and to put a stop to the illegal conduct of GoodRx and the PBMs in participating in the GoodRx integrated savings program. It is the first lawsuit in the U.S. challenging this conduct.

Who is Affected?
Independent pharmacies throughout the United States may have been affected by the defendants’ conduct. If your pharmacy has dispensed generic prescription medication to a patient using insurance and received reimbursement from Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, or Navitus for that prescription at a GoodRx-supplied price, it may have been injured by the defendants’ conduct.

Details on the Parties and the Complaint
The plaintiff, Keaveny Drug, an independent pharmacy in Minnesota, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit is captioned Keaveny Drug, Inc. v. GoodRx, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-09379. The defendants are GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corp., Express Scripts, Inc., MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., and Navitus Health Solutions, LLC.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please use the form or email us at info@locklaw.com.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Which State Does Your Pharmacy Do Business In?(Required)

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Admixtures Antitrust Litigation

/by

Summary
Lockridge Grindal Nauen is prosecuting an antitrust class action alleging that the world’s largest manufacturers of concrete and cement additives conspired with each other to increase the prices they charge for those construction chemicals.

Background
The defendants and potential defendants accused of conspiring to fix the prices of their admixtures are:

The complaint alleges that the defendants implemented their agreement to raise the prices of their concrete and cement additives through constant price increases and surcharges, resulting in skyrocketing prices for concrete and cement additives sold in the United States. This antitrust class action comes on the heels of dawn raids by the European Commission and the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority, and grand jury proceedings by the United States Department of Justice, because of potential violations of antitrust laws that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices.

Were you affected by the alleged concrete and cement additives conspiracy?

If your construction company purchased ready-mix concrete, concrete admixtures, cement additives, or admixtures for mortar any time since 2018, you may have overpaid for those construction chemicals.

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please contact Jessica Servais or Joe Bourne.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.