ZYTIGA® ANTITRUST LITIGATION, LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY CO

/by
ET AL. V. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 19-CV-14146 (D.N.J.)

LGN represents end payor plaintiffs who allege an unlawful scheme by defendants to prolong their monopoly in the market for Zytiga® (abiraterone acetate), a drug used to treat patients with prostate cancer. LGN seeks to recover damages for a proposed class of end payors who purchased Zytiga® indirectly from defendants beginning December 13, 2016 through the present. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey before the Honorable James B. Clark.

ZETIA (EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION

/by
CASE NO. 18-MD-02836 (E.D. VA.)

LGN represents end payor plaintiffs who purchased, paid for, and/or provided reimbursement for Zetia, a blockbuster cholesterol drug that counteracts plaque development in arteries. This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Virginia before the Honorable Rebecca Beach Smith.

WHEAT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, PLOSS ET AL. V. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC. AND MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC

/by
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-02937 (N.D. ILL.)

LGN represents plaintiffs who allege that Kraft Foods and Mondelez Global manipulated cash wheat prices and wheat futures contracts. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified the plaintiff class in January 2020.  The case is pending before the Honorable John F. Ness and is proceeding toward trial.

SEROQUEL XR (EXTENDED RELEASE QUETIAPINE FUMARATE) LITIGATION

/by
CASE NO. 19-CV-08296 (S.D.N.Y.)

LGN represents end payor plaintiffs who allege that a drug company entered into unlawful agreements with two other drug companies not to compete in the market for Seroquel XR and corresponding generic versions.  This action is pending in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Colleen McMahon.

PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION

/by
CASE NO. 1:05-MD-01720 (E.D.N.Y.)

LGN represents a class of merchants that accepted Visa and MasterCard credit and debit cards in the United States. Plaintiffs allege that Visa, MasterCard and their member banks conspired to impose and maintain interchange fees, or “swipe fees,” on merchants as a condition of using their cards. In December 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a settlement between the plaintiff monetary relief class and all defendants for over $6 billion. Some members of the monetary relief class have appealed the District Court’s approval of the settlement, and that appeal is pending.

PACKAGED SEAFOOD ANTITRUST LITIGATION

/by
MDL NO. 2670 (S.D. CAL.)

LGN represents end payor plaintiffs who allege that seafood producers colluded for more than a decade to raise prices and restrict supply of packaged tuna across the United States. The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California before the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino.

HUMIRA (ADALIMUMAB) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 19-CV-01873 (N.D. ILL.)

/by

LGN represents end payor plaintiffs who allege that drug companies entered into an anticompetitive scheme to restrain competition in the market for Humira and its biosimilar competitors.  This action is pending in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois before the Honorable Manish S. Shah.

GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

/by
CASE NO. 2:16-MD-02724 (E.D. PENN.)

LGN serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for a class of end payer purchasers of certain generic prescription drugs. We allege that manufacturers conspired to fix the prices of more than 150 different generic drugs. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Honorable Cynthia Rufe.

ANTIRETROVIRALS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, STALEY, ET AL. V. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,

/by
CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02573 (N.D. CAL.)

LGN serves on the Executive Committee in a proposed class action lawsuit against drug manufacturer Gilead and other major drug manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and others. We allege that these drug manufacturers knowingly colluded to raise the price of anti-HIV drugs and as a result, they illegally raised the price of treatment for approximately 1 million people in the U.S. currently living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV) infection. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before the Honorable Edward M. Chen.

Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation

/by
SUMMARY

On January 26, 2021, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., along with the team at Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese P.C., filed an antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf of our client and purchasers of Crop Inputs (seeds and crop protection chemicals, such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, used by farmers). The lawsuit alleges anticompetitive conduct by major Crop Inputs manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, by, among other things, jointly boycotting companies that would have introduced lower prices of Crop Inputs through online sales. As a result of the anticompetitive conduct, purchasers, such as American farmers, have paid artificially high prices for Crop Inputs.

Background

The market for Crop Inputs is dominated by four major manufacturers (Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Syngenta Corp., and BASF Corp.), three large wholesalers that control the distribution of Crop Inputs to purchasers (Cargill Inc., Winfield Solutions, LLC, and Univar Solutions, Inc.), and retailers (including CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions Inc., GROWMARK, Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Tenkoz Inc., and Federated Co-operatives Ltd.). The existing distribution and sale process for Crop Inputs is structured to maximize opacity and deny purchasers access to objective pricing data and product information needed to make informed purchasing decisions about the Crop Inputs.

Recently, electronic Crop Inputs sales platforms have launched to provide a cheaper and more transparent way for purchasers to buy Crop Inputs, and circumvent the existing opaque and convoluted distribution system. These electronic platforms threaten the manufacturers’, wholesalers’, and retailers’ dominant market position and control over Crop Inputs pricing. This lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers conspired to block the electronic platforms’ access to the Crop Inputs market by engaging in group boycott to deny the electronic platforms of products to sell.

Were you affected by the alleged Crop Inputs conspiracy?

You may have overpaid if you purchased a Crop Input between 2014 and today, and the Crop Input was manufactured by any of the following companies: Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Syngenta Corp., or BASF Corp.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Joe Bruckner (wjbruckner@locklaw.com), Rob Shelquist (rkshelquist@locklaw.com), Brian Clark (bdclark@locklaw.com), or Rebecca Peterson (rapeterson@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

01-26-2021
Class Action Complaint