Corporations injured by anticompetitive activity rely on the talented team of antitrust attorneys at Roberts Law Firm. The most distinct advantage provided by the firm is affordable excellence.
The firm diligently and effectively represents U.S. and international clients in this contentious and evolving area of law while adhering to a budget-minded strategy.
Roberts Law Firm closely monitors emerging trends in antitrust law in order to provide optimal counsel to its commercial clients. Our deep understanding of the legal and economic issues at play strengthens our attack on monopolistic, restrictive, and anticompetitive practices. We also have substantial experience handling antitrust appeals.
Attorneys at the firm have persevered in antitrust litigation in several important industries, including rubber chemicals, biosciences, pharmaceuticals and a wide range of electronics such as personal computers, D-RAM, S-RAM and liquid crystal displays (LCDs).
The firm’s Managing Partner, Mike Roberts, has been appointed to leadership roles in complex commercial litigation involving allegations of antitrust law violations, including In re Microsoft Antitrust Indirect Purchaser Litigation in Arkansas (case settled early); In re Pilot Flying J Rebate Litigation (a nationwide class action which settled within two months from initially filed complaint); In re Aftermarket Automotive Sheet Metal Antitrust Third Party Purchaser Litigation; and In re Parking Heaters Antitrust Litigation (direct purchaser antitrust action). Mr. Roberts served as Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in Ori vs. Fifth Third Bank case and also served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Heartland Bank data breach case.
Technology-related antitrust and intellectual property practice at the firm is bolstered with two patent attorneys. Debra Josephson is a polymer chemist. Stephanie Smith has an undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering.
The firm delivers antitrust counsel to clients in wide-ranging industries across the globe, including representation of corporate clients suffering damages as a result of the following anticompetitive conduct:
Bid-rigging
Conspiracy
Exclusive dealing arrangements
Horizontal market allocation
Intellectual property misuse
Monopolization
Price discrimination
Price fixing
Restraint of trade
Tie-in arrangements
Unfair competition
Unilateral conduct
Vertical and horizontal arrangements
Significant cases include:
1. In re Parking Heaters Antitrust Litig., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 15-mc-940-JG-JO (Appointed Co-Lead Interim Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs).
2. In re Heartland Payment Systems Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. H-09-MD-2046 (Appointed as Member of Steering Committee; case settled).
3. In re Ori vs. Fifth Third Bank and Fiserv, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 08-CV-00432-LA. (Appointed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel; case settled).
4. National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC vs. Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers d/b/a Pilot Flying J, et al, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No.: 4:13-cv-00250-JMM. (Appointed Co-Lead Counsel; case settled in two months for $84 million plus injunctive relief and final approval was entered within 9 months of initially filed complaint).
5. AM Sheet Metal Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 2:11 CV 00162 – LA (Appointed Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs; case has reached partial settlement).
6. In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation: Paul Peek, D.D.S., et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, First Division, No. CV2004-480 (Co-Lead Counsel) (Order approved Final Settlement on March 6, 2007, State of Arkansas; case settled for $37 million).
7. In re U. S. DRAM Antitrust Litigation: Bruce K. Burton, M.D., P.A. Malvern Diagnostic Clinic, et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al. Circuit Court of Hot Springs County, Arkansas, First Division, Case No. CV-2004-226-1 (Class Counsel – Case has settled for $300 million)
8. In re: Augmentin Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 2:02cv442; Ryan-House et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 2:02cv442 (Plaintiffs Class Counsel – case settled for $61 million.)
9. In re: Nifedipine Litigation, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 04-CIV-00799 (RJL). SAJ Distributors, Inc. v. Biovail Corporation, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No 04-CIV-00799 (RJL) (Plaintiffs class counsel; case settled for $40 million).
10. In re: U.S. SRAM Antitrust Litigation: United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:07-md-1819 CW (Plaintiffs class counsel; case has settled for $25.4 million).
11. Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Docket No. 05-1602 (JLL/RJH), MDL No. 1730 (Plaintiffs class counsel).
12. In re Imodium Advanced Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 02cv4093; SAJ Distributors, Inc. vs. McNeil-PPC, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 02-6993 (Plaintiffs class counsel).
13. In re: Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, MDL Docket No. 1603; SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. v. The Purdue Pharma Co. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, MDL Docket No. 1603 (Case settled: $25 million).
14. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court Eastern District of New York, Master File No. 05-MD-1720(JG)(JO) (Plaintiffs class counsel).
15. In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 04-CV-5525 (Case settled – $49 million).
16. In re Skelaxin Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 1:12-md-02343-CLC (Case settled – $73 million).
17. In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, (filed on behalf of RBX Chemicals as individual action and settled: confidential terms).
18. Glover v. National Football League, et al., 2:12-cv-287, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
