Contacts

Individual and Class Civil Litigation

Overview
Cases

While Eimer Stahl offers a full range of antitrust counseling and compliance services, clients sometimes face challenges to their business practices in the form of individual and class action lawsuits.  Our elite antitrust and competition lawyers represent major clients in large, complex antitrust lawsuits, a rarity for a firm this size.  Our unique and creative approach to litigation has garnered extensive praise from our clients and others and has allowed us to efficiently and effectively extricate our clients from even the most complex antitrust lawsuits.  Eimer Stahl’s clients include leading national and international corporations in a variety of industries, including chemicals, agriculture, industrial goods, energy, consumer products, and technology.

  • Represented an oil refiner and obtained dismissal of action seeking billions of dollars in damages under the Sherman and Clayton Acts; action alleged conspiracy with OPEC, the government of Venezuela and several U.S. and international oil companies to control oil production and raise, fix and stabilize prices (In re Refined Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1886).
  • Defending an egg producer in direct and indirect purchaser class and direct action lawsuits against egg producers and their national cooperative alleging that they conspired to restrict the supply of eggs and raise prices (In re Processed Eggs Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
  • Defending a steel manufacturer in direct and indirect purchaser class action lawsuits alleging conspiracy to restrict the supply of steel produced in the United States (Standard Iron Works v. Arcelor Mittal, et al.).
  • Representing a major electronics company in direct and indirect purchaser class action multidistrict antitrust litigation involving allegations that manufacturers or sellers of optical disk drives conspired to illegally raise and fix optical disk drive prices (In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2143).
  • Represented the world’s largest customer brand dairy product company and obtained dismissal in a multidistrict action alleging conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of cheese and milk and to manipulate the price of milk futures contracts (In re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2031).
  • Serving as trial and appellate counsel for an electronics company named as a defendant in an alleged TFT-LCD panel price-fixing case (Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al.).
  • Representing a lead defendant and serving as chair of the joint defense group in a series of nineteen Sherman Act cases (Mississippi, Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, Louisiana, New Jersey, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Alabama and 6 other states) in which body shops complain that over 60 insurers have conspired to suppress shop charges for labor and parts; the complaints also invoke a federal consent decree entered between insurance trade organizations and Department of Justice (Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557).

Other Antitrust Practice Areas

  • Represented an oil refiner and obtained dismissal of action seeking billions of dollars in damages under the Sherman and Clayton Acts; action alleged conspiracy with OPEC, the government of Venezuela and several U.S. and international oil companies to control oil production and raise, fix and stabilize prices (In re Refined Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1886).
  • Defending an egg producer in direct and indirect purchaser class and direct action lawsuits against egg producers and their national cooperative alleging that they conspired to restrict the supply of eggs and raise prices (In re Processed Eggs Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
  • Defending a steel manufacturer in direct and indirect purchaser class action lawsuits alleging conspiracy to restrict the supply of steel produced in the United States (Standard Iron Works v. Arcelor Mittal, et al.).
  • Representing a major electronics company in direct and indirect purchaser class action multidistrict antitrust litigation involving allegations that manufacturers or sellers of optical disk drives conspired to illegally raise and fix optical disk drive prices (In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2143).
  • Represented the world’s largest customer brand dairy product company and obtained dismissal in a multidistrict action alleging conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of cheese and milk and to manipulate the price of milk futures contracts (In re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2031).
  • Serving as trial and appellate counsel for an electronics company named as a defendant in an alleged TFT-LCD panel price-fixing case (Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al.).
  • Representing a lead defendant and serving as chair of the joint defense group in a series of nineteen Sherman Act cases (Mississippi, Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, Louisiana, New Jersey, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Alabama and 6 other states) in which body shops complain that over 60 insurers have conspired to suppress shop charges for labor and parts; the complaints also invoke a federal consent decree entered between insurance trade organizations and Department of Justice (Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557).
  • Representing a leading manufacturer of containerboard and containerboard products in a multi-billion dollar antitrust lawsuit brought against a number of manufacturers (Kleen Products, LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America, et al.).
  • Retained by a major chemical company to assist with the appeal of a $1.06 billion judgment entered after a jury trial in an antitrust class action (In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit).
  • Representing a lead defendant in an action brought by body shops alleging seven nationwide RICO price suppression conspiracies by the country’s largest auto insurers, competing body shops and data providers to underpay labor rates, and parts prices (Crawford’s Auto Center v. Allstate, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).
  • Defending our client in a recently filed lawsuit asserting Sherman Act and RICO claims against over 70 insurers and several trade organizations and seeking certification of nationwide classes for an alleged conspiracy to deceive and underpay claims under homeowners insurance policies (Snyder, et al. v. ACORD, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado).
  • Representing the second-largest agricultural cooperative in the nation in direct and indirect purchaser class actions alleging price fixing of raw milk (Edwards, et al. v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al.; First Impressions v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al.).