Federal and state antitrust laws are intended to protect and promote competition among businesses by prohibiting price fixing and other forms of anticompetitive conduct. Violations can range from straightforward agreements among competitors to raise prices above competitive levels, to often complicated schemes designed to increase cartel participants’ profits at the expense of their customers. WMD attorneys have wide-ranging experience representing clients in a variety of complex antitrust litigations.

We regularly represent businesses and individuals in class and direct actions against some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world, including global investment banks. We also handle significant antitrust cases on the defense side, representing companies accused of engaging in all forms of anticompetitive conduct. Many of our partners are leaders in the antitrust field.

Representative matters for the Antitrust & Competitive Litigation group include:

• City of Philadelphia et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al., Civ. No. 19-cv-1608 (S.D.N.Y.): The Firm serves as court appointed co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in an action pending in the Southern District of New York in which the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore claim that certain financial institutions, including Bank of America, Barclays Bank, and Goldman Sachs & Co., artificially inflated interest rates on securities known as variable-rate demand obligation bonds (“VRDOs”). VRDOs are tax exempt bonds used to fund major municipal projects. Interest rates on these bonds are reset daily or weekly, and the banks serving as remarketing agents are obligated to keep the cities’ rates as low as possible. On November 2, 2020, the Court denied Defendants’ motion and ruled that the claims asserted, if proved at trial, would constitute a per se violation of the antitrust laws. The matter is ongoing.

• In Re Delta Dental Insurance Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 19-cv-06734 (N.D. Ill.): The Firm is serving as court appointed co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in an antitrust action in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) against Delta Dental State Insurers, a group of not-for-profit dental services corporations. Plaintiffs allege that Delta Dental engaged in anti-competitive conduct by dividing up the national market between its regional plans, leaving dentists with no choice but to accept unfavorable terms on reimbursements and coverage. The complaint alleges that Delta Dental instituted a coordinated agreement not to compete among the various separate Delta Dental entities and misused its monopoly power in the market for dental insurance across the United States. On September 4, 2020, the Court denied Delta Dental’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. In so doing, the Court held that the operative complaint properly pled a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC §1) under both the per se and rule of reason standards. The matter is ongoing.

• In Re Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Litigation, Civ. No., 19-cv-21551 (S.D. Fla.): The Firm represents direct purchasers of farm raised Atlantic salmon in an antitrust action pending in the Southern District of Florida (Miami) alleging that, beginning as early as 2015, several salmon producers conspired to artificially fix and raise the price for farm raised Atlantic salmon sold in the United States. The case stems from investigations and raids in Europe of Norwegian-owned companies farming Atlantic salmon. The operative complaint alleges that the structure and characteristics of the market for farm raised Atlantic salmon support the existence of a conspiracy in that the barriers to new entry are high, farm raised salmon is a commodity product where prices are correlated across the globe, Norwegian producers dominate the production of salmon and the defendants are the largest salmon producers worldwide, and industry connection and trade associations facilitated the defendants’ collusion. On March 23, 2021, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. In so doing , the Court found that the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient parallel conduct and plus factors to properly plead a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC §1). The matter is ongoing.

• Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., Civ. No. 14-1327 (D.N.J.): The Firm defended Village Super Markets Inc. in an action alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization of the full service grocery chain market. The Plaintiff alleged that Village Supermarket engaged in a series of acts intended to impede the ability of a competitor to enter the relevant market. The case settled early in the discovery phase of the case with no finding of fault and no admission of liability by Village Supermarkets.

• In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation (No. II), Civ. No. 20-00008 (D.C.): The Firm represents Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. in multi-district litigation consolidated in the District of Columbia pleading antitrust claims against the four largest railroads in the United States. The lawsuit alleges that the railroads engaged in a multi-year price fixing conspiracy to increase the price of rail-freight transport to the detriment of all railroad customers, including Air Products. The litigation survived the motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, are going forward in discovery.