The complaint alleges that the players suffered repeated head impacts and concussions during the years they played football, and consequently now face neurological disorders and other injuries, such as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (“CTE”). Mr. Boyd, the lead plaintiff in the case, is the only living player to be diagnosed with CTE.  He started the organization “Dignity After Football” to assist thousands of disabled and under-pensioned former players.

The comprehensive legal complaint details how the NFL has long been aware of the serious risks to football players from head impacts, but chose instead to minimize and downplay the scientific evidence acknowledging these risks. The plaintiffs contend that as a result of the NFL’s improper conduct, the league caused serious injuries to many players. 

“Each of these NFL retirees, regardless of their age, position, or tenure in the NFL, has suffered significantly as a result of the NFL’s conduct,” said Rich Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in this case. “For too long, the players who have made the game what it is today have been neglected by the NFL, and now they need sophisticated medical treatment. This lawsuit seeks to hold the NFL accountable and provide former players with the medical care that they deserve.”

Hausfeld LLP has an active sports and entertainment practice and represents retired football players, as well as former NCAA college athletes, suing over the use of their images and likenesses.   NFL players may visit the firm website (www.hausfeldllp.com) to learn more about their legal rights.

Other counsel in the case include Girardi & Keese, a nationally recognized law firm representing NFL players in similar personal injury litigation.

Hausfeld LLP is one of the leading litigation firms in the world with offices in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and affiliated offices around the globe. A copy of the amended Boyd v. NFL complaint will be available for download at: www.hausfeldllp.com.

At his previous firm (now known as Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll), many colleagues were—to put it mildly—skeptical about Hausfeld's global enthusiasm. One told Legal Times at the time of the split that Hausfeld was prone to returning from overseas trips and announcing that he was ready to open up offices. And as the firm's top rainmaker, Hausfeld usually got his way: He had cajoled the firm into opening in London in 2007.

But his partners balked at expanding further. As long as Europe had no close equivalent to U.S.–style class or collective actions for purchasers harmed by cartels to recover lost money, and the United Kingdom's steps toward such a system hadn't yet panned out for plaintiffs, "[at the time] the concept of private enforcement of antitrust claims in Europe was thought to be as distant a dream as intergalactic travel" by former colleagues, admits Hausfeld.

Hausfeld took his former firm's London office with him. And his dream no longer looks so far-fetched: In December the firm (along with Susman Godfrey) was tapped to lead a massive U.S. class action over claims that a group of banks manipulated LIBOR, the London interbank loan rate.

The appointment was due, in part, to Hausfeld's unique London outpost. Hausfeld's client, the city of Baltimore, which suffered losses on interest rate swaps tied to LIBOR, is just one of possibly thousands of municipal plaintiffs. Potential damages are astronomical. "There was a period of time when I thought $100,000 was large," Hausfeld says. "Then a million became large. Then a billion. Here, the market is trillions."

And LIBOR isn't the only pony Hausfeld has in the race for the European market. Antitrust fines by the European Commission now surpass those by the United States. But the money goes to enforcement authorities, leaving frustrated non–U.S. customers with no litigation path to collective recovery. That's a potential windfall for the firm that can turn their grievances into viable global claims. To tap that market, Hausfeld has created an alternative model that isn't wholly dependent on the courtroom. The firm's clients are customers of the companies fined for price-fixing. By grouping them together, the firm wields real leverage: Cartelists fear that their customers will withdraw their business as much as they fear that the firm will lodge an avalanche of potential individual antitrust claims, which U.K. law now permits. Just months after the new firm opened in 2009, for instance, it struck a precedent-setting out-of-court deal for non–U.S. customers harmed by a price-collusion scheme carried out by companies that sell the hoses used in pumping oil to and from tankers. Today the firm is working to privately resolve eight U.K. and one Dutch antitrust enforcement group claim. The model could also apply to the LIBOR case, Hausfeld says.

He admits that the firm's U.K. office is not yet profitable. It continues to be supported by the U.S. operations, which have been enriched by the $485 million (and counting) in settlements that the firm has struck with airlines targeted by international air cargo antitrust investigations; since 2007, at least 14 airlines have pled guilty in the U.S. to colluding on air cargo rates. Now, a much-anticipated E.C. decision in that case, expected soon, could strengthen Hausfeld's hand in Europe, where the firm has 200-plus air cargo clients. Potential recoveries, says Hausfeld, "could vastly exceed the settlements in the U.S." 

According to Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP, “The settlement with Air Canada is an excellent result for the US class, which has recovered nearly half a billion dollars in settlements from over twenty different air cargo carriers. We will continue our efforts to pursue recoveries both in the US and around the world.”

As reflected in the chart below, this is the seventeenth settlement in the case so far, bringing the total recovery to over $485 million, with eleven other airlines remaining as defendants in the litigation.

Nearly half of the original defendants in the civil action brought by Hausfeld LLP and other law firms have pled guilty to a conspiracy to fix the price of shipping goods by air to and from the United States. The plaintiffs allege that the cartel increased global shipping prices.

Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld, Brent Landau, Hilary Scherrer, William Butterfield, and Melinda Coolidge.

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Joy Bickelhaupt

Tel: 202-540-7157

jbickelhaupt@hausfeldllp.com

NOTES TO EDITORS

About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognized as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world. 

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

For further information please visit: www.hausfeldllp.com

The move is made in recognition of what Hausfeld considers the successful establishment of its premier competition litigation practice and continued move into other areas of litigation, including consumer, human rights, financial services, and other commercial litigation.

Related News and Press:

www.contactmusic.com/news/sister-sledge-fight-for-digital-royalties_1289907

www.eurweb.com/2012/02/sister-sledge-sues-to-claim-digital-royalties/

www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/sister-sledge-files-class-action-286903

The complaint alleges that the players suffered repeated head impacts and concussions during the years they played football, and consequently now face neurological disorders and other injuries, such as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (“CTE”). Mr. Boyd, the lead plaintiff in the case, is the only living player to be diagnosed with CTE.  He started the organization “Dignity After Football” to assist thousands of disabled and under-pensioned former players.

The comprehensive legal complaint details how the NFL has long been aware of the serious risks to football players from head impacts, but chose instead to minimize and downplay the scientific evidence acknowledging these risks. The plaintiffs contend that as a result of the NFL’s improper conduct, the league caused serious injuries to thousands of players. 

“As the NFL prepares for the Super Bowl, it has forgotten about the legacy of its former players, many of whom built the league and are now suffering from the devastating consequences of on-field head injuries,” said Richard Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in the case. “The NFL needs to step up, do the right thing, and compensate the injured retirees who made the game what it is today.”

Hausfeld LLP has an active sports and entertainment practice and represents retired football players, as well as former NCAA college athletes, suing over the use of their images and likenesses. The firm has also filed suit against the NFL Players Association on behalf of Carl Eller and other former players alleging that the union improperly negotiated away retirees’ benefits during the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement. The firm urges retired NFL players to visit its website (www.hausfeldllp.com) to learn more about their legal rights.

Other counsel in the case include Girardi & Keese, a nationally recognized law firm representing NFL players in similar personal injury litigation.

Hausfeld LLP is one of the leading litigation firms in the world with offices in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and affiliated offices around the globe. A copy of the Boyd v. NFL complaint will be available for download at: www.hausfeldllp.com.

The complaint alleges that the players suffered repeated head impacts and concussions during the years they played football, and consequently now face neurological disorders and other injuries, such as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (“CTE”). Mr. Boyd, the lead plaintiff in the case, is the only living player to be diagnosed with CTE.  He started the organization “Dignity After Football” to assist thousands of disabled and under-pensioned former players.

The comprehensive legal complaint details how the NFL has long been aware of the serious risks to football players from head impacts, but chose instead to minimize and downplay the scientific evidence acknowledging these risks. The plaintiffs contend that as a result of the NFL’s improper conduct, the league caused serious injuries to thousands of players. 

“As the NFL prepares for the Super Bowl, it has forgotten about the legacy of its former players, many of whom built the league and are now suffering from the devastating consequences of on-field head injuries,” said Richard Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in the case. “The NFL needs to step up, do the right thing, and compensate the injured retirees who made the game what it is today.”

Hausfeld LLP has an active sports and entertainment practice and represents retired football players, as well as former NCAA college athletes, suing over the use of their images and likenesses. The firm has also filed suit against the NFL Players Association on behalf of Carl Eller and other former players alleging that the union improperly negotiated away retirees’ benefits during the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement. The firm urges retired NFL players to visit its website (www.hausfeldllp.com) to learn more about their legal rights.

Other counsel in the case include Girardi & Keese, a nationally recognized law firm representing NFL players in similar personal injury litigation.

Hausfeld LLP is one of the leading litigation firms in the world with offices in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and affiliated offices around the globe. A copy of the Boyd v. NFL complaint will be available for download at: www.hausfeldllp.com.

To read the complete article please click here.

According to Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP, “The settlement with El Al is an excellent result for the US class, which has now recovered nearly half a billion dollars in settlements so far. We will continue our efforts to pursue recoveries for the huge number of victims of this cartel both in the US and around the world.”

As reflected in the chart below, this is the sixteenth settlement in the case so far, bringing the total recovery to nearly $480 million, with a dozen other airlines remaining as defendants in the litigation.

Nearly half of the original defendants in the civil action brought by Hausfeld LLP and other law firms have pled guilty to a conspiracy to fix the price of shipping goods by air to and from the United States. The plaintiffs allege that the cartel increased global shipping prices.

Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld, Brent Landau, Hilary Scherrer, William Butterfield, and Melinda Coolidge.

December 20, 2011

New York - Hausfeld LLP, a firm known for its longtime support of former NFL players has filed a class action medical monitoring complaint against the National Football League in federal district court in New York, which seeks to apply New York law to the nationwide class.

The suit seeks national class status for medical monitoring relief for all former NFL players based on claims of negligence and fraud with respect to brain injuries caused by concussions received as an active NFL player. Three class representatives are named in the Complaint led by former Buffalo Bill middle linebacker and longtime New York State resident, Harry Jacobs. Jacobs like many former players is in desperate need of systematic medical intervention for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of cognitive neurological brain damage. 

“Unlike the players of today, older retirees left the game of football with miniscule pensions, limited benefits and no health care coverage and there is precious little time left for them to receive the relief they not only need but are entitled to”, said Richard Lewis, one of the Hausfeld LLP attorneys who filed the case.

In additional to the class claims, the complaint also alleges individual personal injury claims on behalf of the Class Representatives and their spouses. 

Any questions concerning this press release should be directed to Richard Lewis at Hausfeld LLP in Washington, DC, at rlewis@hausfledllp.com.

The Complaint alleges that UMG utilizes standardized contracts that calculate lower artist royalties for album “sales” as opposed to “licenses.” License royalty rates are more favorable to artists because record companies do not have the associated marketing and packaging costs or the possibility of product returns that may occur with physical album sales. Artists’ contracts that were in place prior to the advent of digital music distribution generally allow record companies to license master recordings to third parties. The lawsuit contends that although UMG’s contracts with digital music providers (like iTunes) specifically characterize digital distributions as licenses, UMG has applied the much lower “sales” royalty rate to digital downloads and underpaid its artists by hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Chuck D’s lawsuit follows on the heels of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case brought by Eminem’s production company (F.B.T. Productions, Inc. v. Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (2010)). There, the Court found that UMG improperly calculated Eminem’s digital downloads royalty rate as a “sale” rather than a “license.” After the Supreme Court denied review, the case returned to the district court for further proceedings. 

“As digital downloads have emerged as the primary method by which many consumers acquire music, UMG has systematically failed to pay appropriate royalties to musicians for these downloads,” said James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in the case. “Chuck D has been ‘fighting the power’ for over two decades and will continue to do so through this suit in order to help all musicians, including many legacy artists who are living on fixed incomes.” 

Hausfeld LLP has an active entertainment and sports law practice and represents athletes and artists in various other class actions.  Other counsel in the case include Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, a class action law firm in California; and Provosty & Gankendorff, L.L.C., an entertainment law firm in New Orleans. 

Hausfeld LLP is one of the leading class action firms in the world with offices in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and affiliated firms around the globe. A copy of the Chuck D complaint is available for download. Hausfeld LLP urges musicians to contact the firm to learn more about their legal rights.  For additional inquries, please send an email to: digitaldownloads@hausfeldllp.com.

Chuck D. v. UMG Recordings Complaint

The Complaint alleges that UMG utilizes standardized contracts that calculate lower artist royalties for album “sales” as opposed to “licenses.” License royalty rates are more favorable to artists because record companies do not have the associated marketing and packaging costs or the possibility of product returns that may occur with physical album sales. Artists’ contracts that were in place prior to the advent of digital music distribution generally allow record companies to license master recordings to third parties. The lawsuit contends that although UMG’s contracts with digital music providers (like iTunes) specifically characterize digital distributions as licenses, UMG has applied the much lower “sales” royalty rate to digital downloads and underpaid its artists by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Chuck D’s lawsuit follows on the heels of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case brought by Eminem’s production company (F.B.T. Productions, Inc. v. Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (2010)). There, the Court found that UMG improperly calculated Eminem’s digital downloads royalty rate as a “sale” rather than a “license.” After the Supreme Court denied review, the case returned to the district court for further proceedings.

“As digital downloads have emerged as the primary method by which many consumers acquire music, UMG has systematically failed to pay appropriate royalties to musicians for these downloads,” said James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in the case. “Chuck D has been ‘fighting the power’ for over two decades and will continue to do so through this suit in order to help all musicians, including many legacy artists who are living on fixed incomes.” 

Hausfeld LLP has an active entertainment and sports law practice and represents athletes and artists in various other class actions.  Other counsel in the case include Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, a class action law firm in California; and Provosty & Gankendorff, L.L.C., an entertainment law firm in New Orleans.

Hausfeld LLP is one of the leading class action firms in the world with offices in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and affiliated firms around the globe. A copy of the Chuck D complaint is available to downloading below. Hausfeld LLP urges musicians to contact the firm to learn more about their legal rights.  For additional inquiries, please send an email to: digitaldownloads@hausfeldllp.com.

The Complaint alleges that UMG utilizes standardized contracts that calculate lower artist royalties for album “sales” as opposed to “licenses.” License royalty rates are more favorable to artists because record companies do not have the associated marketing and packaging costs or the possibility of product returns that may occur with physical album sales. Artists’ contracts that were in place prior to the advent of digital music distribution generally allow record companies to license master recordings to third parties. The lawsuit contends that although UMG’s contracts with digital music providers (like iTunes) specifically characterize digital distributions as licenses, UMG has applied the much lower “sales” royalty rate to digital downloads and underpaid its artists by hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Chuck D’s lawsuit follows on the heels of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case brought by Eminem’s production company (F.B.T. Productions, Inc. v. Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (2010)). There, the Court found that UMG improperly calculated Eminem’s digital downloads royalty rate as a “sale” rather than a “license.” After the Supreme Court denied review, the case returned to the district court for further proceedings. 

“As digital downloads have emerged as the primary method by which many consumers acquire music, UMG has systematically failed to pay appropriate royalties to musicians for these downloads,” said James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP involved in the case. “Chuck D has been ‘fighting the power’ for over two decades and will continue to do so through this suit in order to help all musicians, including many legacy artists who are living on fixed incomes.” 

Hausfeld LLP has an active entertainment and sports law practice and represents athletes and artists in various other class actions.  Other counsel in the case include Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, a class action law firm in California; and Provosty & Gankendorff, L.L.C., an entertainment law firm in New Orleans.

Hausfeld LLP is one of the leading class action firms in the world with offices in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and London, UK and affiliated firms around the globe. A copy of the Chuck D complaint is available for download below. Hausfeld LLP urges musicians to contact the firm to learn more about their legal rights.  For additional inquiries, please send an email to: digitaldownloads@hausfeldllp.com.

RELATED NEWS:

 www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/chuck-d-sues-universal-music-group-256741

 www.variety.com/article/VR1118045494

 www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/public-enemy-s-chuck-d-sues-universal-over-1005469602.story

The complaint alleges that while the league was allowed to use players’ names, images, and likenesses during their playing days, no such usage was allowed after the players’ contracts expired – particularly for those players who were with the league during the “glory days” prior to 1993.  For example, the complaint focuses on the fact that the NFL uses extensive film productions to promote the league - complete with scripts, music and editing as opposed to re-broadcasts of NFL games - for which it has generally offered no compensation to retired players whose images are used throughout these films.  The retired players have brought claims for unjust enrichment, violations of the Lanham Act, and for violations of their rights of publicity due to these unauthorized uses of their likenesses.

In January 2010, the court denied the NFL’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and allowed the plaintiffs to move forward with their claims.  The case is now in active litigation.  Recently, additional lawsuits were filed that have been related to and will likely be consolidated with the Dryer action.

On September 13, 2011, the Court appointed Hausfeld LLP, Bob Stein LLC, and Zimmerman Reed the three co-lead counsel in this matter.

Click here to view the Class Action Complaint filed by Bill Russell on October 5, 2011.

Now, many of Hausfeld's foes, and clients, are in the sports world. Hausfeld LLP is representing retired players in a lawsuit against the NFLPA alleging the union illegally negotiated benefits on their behalf, and is one of three firms representing ex-players suing NFL Films claiming nonpayment for use of their images. Hausfeld, 64, also is representing former college players suing the NCAA for allegedly profiting off their images.

To read more, click here:  www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/10/10/Labor-and-Agents/Hausfeld.aspx

Civil Action No: 0:11-cv-00748-RHK-JSM (D. Minn.)  (Eller I) 

On March 29, 2011, four retired or former NFL players--Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller (who heads the Retired Players Association), Pro Bowl running back Priest Holmes, fullback Obafemi Ayanbadejo and tight end Ryan Collins--filed a class action suit in federal district court in Minnesota against the league and its 32 member clubs, claiming that the owners' lockout and various other practices--including the NFL College Draft coupled with the Rookie Cap for each team--violated federal antitrust laws. On April 1, 2011, that complaint was amended to add a rookie plaintiff--Antawan Walker. 

The amended complaint is submitted on behalf of the following classes: (a) all retired or former professional football players who were employed by any NFL member club but are not now employed by the NFL or any member club and who receive health, retirement or other benefits from the NFL pursuant to the “Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan” (the “Plan”) or other benefit plans subsidized by the NFL and (b) potential rookie professional football players who, as of March 11, 2011 to the date of final judgment in this action and the determination of any appeal therefrom, have not previously commenced negotiation with any NFL club concerning employment and have not been selected in any NFL College Draft.  

A copy of the amended complaint and its exhibits can be found here. That complaint tells the full story about the lockout imposed on March 12, 2011 and the NFL’s longstanding scheme to put it in place.  

The plaintiffs in the Eller I case immediately moved to enjoin the lockout. This lockout threatens retired players who are beneficiaries under the Plan mentioned above (which was put on endangered status last year by the Department of Labor) and rookies who are being deprived of the opportunity to play in the 2011 NFL season. 

The Eller I plaintiffs’ initial injunction brief can be found here. Their reply brief can be found here. 

The motion in Eller I, as well as a similar motion by active NFL players and a rookie in a related case, was argued on April 6, 2011 before United States District Court Judge Susan Nelson. The Eller Plaintiffs explained at length how the league’s lockout was an antitrust restraint not protected under the labor laws. An outline of his argument can be found here. 

On April 25, 2011, Judge Nelson issued an 89-page opinion enjoining the NFL's lockout. She did so in the case involving current NFL players, although, as she noted, her ruling inures to the benefit of the Eller plaintiffs as well. Her order on the injunction can be found here. On the same day, the league filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; that notice can be found here.

The order deals only with the lockout. Judge Nelson left for another day any rulings on the legality of the NFL's other alleged restraints of trade. 

On April 25, 2011, the NFL also requested that Judge Nelson stay the effect of her injunction order until the Eighth Circuit could rule on any appeal. On April 27, Judge Nelson rejected that request in a 20 page order that can be found here. 

On July 8, 2011, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's injunction order and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The Order can be found here.  

The NFL ultimately settled the case with the NFL Players Association (“NFLPA”) and ended the lockout. 

On August 24, 2011, the plaintiffs in Eller I dismissed their case without prejudice to filing. 

2. Eller et al v. NFLPA et al

Civil Action No: 0:11-cv-0263-DSD-FLN (D. Minn.) (Eller II) 

On September 13, 2011, 28 retired or former NFL players, including many Hall of Famers—Carl Eller, Charles Bednarik, Paul Krause, Lem Barney, Joe DeLamielleure, Leonard Moore, William Wood, Jr., Bob Lilly, Elvin Bethea, John Hannah, Tom Mack, Anthony Yary, Dave Wilcox, Leroy Kelly, Jackie Smith, Charlie Taylor, Mel Renfro, Bob St. Clair, Dan Hampton, Gino Marchetti, William Shaw, Don Maynard, Tom McDonald, Larry Little, Larry Wright, Kyle Turley, Obafemi Ayanbadejo, and Ryan Collins—filed a new class action lawsuit against the NFLPA, its Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, and certain of the active player plaintiffs who had previously sued to enjoin the NFL’s lockout. A copy of that complaint can be found here. 

The complaint in Eller II seeks a declaration that the NFLPA did not validly represent retired NFL players in any settlement with the NFL and raises claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and for breach of fiduciary duty.

3. Gault et al v. NFLPA et al

Civil Action No: 0:11-cv-03012-RHK-JJG (D. Minn.) (Gault)

On October 13, 2011, 19 former players - including Willie Gault and Hugh McElhenny, joined Carl Eller, Chuck Bednarik and 23 other hall of famers when they filed a class action, on behalf of all former NFL players, against the NFLPA. The class action is Gault et al. v. NFLPA and is represented by two Hall of Famers, two soon to be Hall of Famers, three players listed in the NFL's official encyclopedia, Total Football II, as 300 of the greatest players in NFL history, and several other notable players.

This makes 47 former NFL players who have filed suit against the NFLPA in the past months. 27 of whom are hall of famers, 26 of whom who are listed in the NFL's official encyclopedia, Total Football II as 300 of the greatest players in NFL history, players who have made 39 super bowl appearances, and players who were selected to a combined 201 pro bowls.

The classes of players combined represents every decade of football since the 1940's, virtually every position in football, and every category of NFL player - including vested, non-vested, hall of famers, forgotten players, and legends of the game. Essentially, the suit aims to increase the amount that the retired players should have gotten in this past CBA. These players feel that instead of trying to divide a 620 million dollar legacy fund (which arguably still leaves many retired NFL players receiving a pension which falls under the federal poverty guidelines), the amounts given (earned) to retired players should be more representative of the billion dollar profits these players sacrificed to create.

The cases are currently set for a February 15, 2012 hearing date in federal court in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The law firms of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason and Hausfeld LLP are representing the plaintiffs. 

A copy of the Complaint can be found here. 

Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP, commented:

“The settlement with Saudia – an airline that did not plead guilty to criminal charges – is an excellent result for the US class, which has now recovered nearly half a billion dollars in settlements so far. We will continue our efforts to pursue recoveries for the huge number of victims of this cartel both in the US and around the world.”

As reflected in the chart below, this is the fourteenth settlement in the case so far, bringing the total recovery to over $450 million, with many other airlines remaining as defendants in the litigation.

Nearly half of the original defendants in the civil action brought by Hausfeld LLP and other law firms have pled guilty to a conspiracy to fix the price of shipping goods by air to and from the United States. The plaintiffs allege that the cartel increased global shipping prices.

Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld, Brent Landau, Hilary Scherrer, William Butterfield, and Melinda Coolidge.

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Joy Bickelhaupt

Tel: 202-540-7157

jbickelhaupt@hausfeldllp.com

NOTES TO EDITORS

About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognized as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world. 

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

For further information please visit: www.hausfeldllp.com

• The overwhelming majority of NFL retirees never made anywhere near the millions of dollars being paid to current players
• A majority of NFL retirees have spent more money on medical expenses than they ever made playing football
• The NFL’s disability system currently pays benefits to only 4% of its retired players
• Draconian rules set-up by the League and a Union that does not represent the interest of its retirees, leave most former players needing to rely on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to fix their broken bodies
• Under funded pension benefits have left even some Hall of Famers receiving less than $200 per month to live on

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nfl_retiree_rightsandbenefits/

Legal proceedings against Kone & Thyseen Krupp in the Netherlands

Cartel specialist Hausfeld is a backer of the Stichting Elevator Cartel Claim Foundation (“the Foundation”), which has started legal proceedings against the elevator cartelists.

The European Commission issued a decision in which it concluded that certain elevator and escalator manufacturers were guilty of illegal and unlawful price-fixing and market division, as a consequence of which customers overpaid for installation and maintenance for many years. The fine charged by the European Commission was one of the highest ever: EUR 992 million. Since that amount will not be paid to the customers, but will be paid to the European Union (only), the Foundation claims on a no cure no pay basis on behalf of all the aggrieved parties compensation from the elevator companies. This is encouraged by the European Commission and also mentioned this in its decision of February 2007:

“Any person or firm affected by anti-competitive behaviour as described in this case may bring the matter before the courts of the Member States and seek damages, submitting elements of the published decision as evidence that the behaviour took place and was illegal.”

The list of participants which have placed their claims with the Foundation include household names listed in Fortune Global 500 and Forbes Global 2000 as well as both the Business Week and Interbrand 150 Best Global Brand. And, significant buyers and users of elevators, escalators and travelators in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (the EU Member States affected by the Cartel) continue to join the ECCF claim recovery process.

The Foundation has instructed the well known law firm Boekel de N. and the English law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP.

In late December 2010, the Foundation summoned the cartel on the basis of the participation to the cartel in the period 1995 up to and including 2004, as determined by the EC.

The decision of the EC forms / comprises binding evidence for the fact that unlawful behaviour has taken place. The EC concluded that the elevator manufacturers made a lot of effort to prevent the discovery of the cartel, including the use of pre-paid phones, false names on expenses accounts, the organisation of meetings at unusual places (e.g. cafes and restaurants outside of the cartelists area) and without notes being taken in writing. The worldwide market for elevators and escalators industry amounts to approximately €30 million per year according to the EC.

The majority of such business or governmental organizations have not received any damages from the cartelists, and the elevator and escalator companies continue to refuse to voluntarily repay the amounts they illegally overcharged customers.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The Elevators Cartel was a long running and deep seated cartel that caused significant damage to its victims. According to the Commission, this cartel only impacted the Benelux countries and Germany and thus Holland was an attractive and practical litigation forum for this case. Our action here shows we will pursue claims for cartel victims wherever necessary in order to recover their losses. As always, we encourage the cartelists to come forward to acknowledge and resolve their liability in a commercial manner.”

- ENDS -

Background – The Elevators Cartel 

• The European Commission fined the Otis, KONE, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp groups €992 million for operating cartels for the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in clear violation of EC Treaty rules that outlaw restrictive business practices (Article 81).
• The decision names 17 subsidiaries of the above groups, together with Mitsubishi Elevator Europe B.V. which participated in the Dutch cartel.
• Lifts and escalators play a major role in modern urban life - Otis alone estimates that the equivalent of the entire world's population travel on their lifts, escalators and moving walkways every 9 days.
• Between at least 1995 and 2004, these companies rigged bids for procurement contracts, fixed prices and allocated projects to each other, shared markets and exchanged commercially important and confidential information.
• The European commission stated that the effects of this cartel may continue for twenty to fifty years as maintenance is often done by the companies that installed the equipment in the first place; by cartelising the installation, the companies distorted the markets for years to come. KONE subsidiaries received full immunity from fines under the Commission’s leniency programme in respect of the cartels in Belgium and Luxembourg, as they were first to provide information about these cartels. Similarly, Otis Netherlands received full immunity in respect of the Netherlands cartel. The fines imposed on the ThyssenKrupp companies were increased by 50%, as it is a repeat offender. At the time the overall fine was the largest ever fines imposed by the Commission for cartel violations, and the fine on the ThyssenKrupp group remains the largest fine imposed by the EC on a corporate group.
• Fines go to EC Community revenue, not to the parties who suffer the financial losses caused by the market manipulation, in particular by the artificial inflation of prices. The EC consistently encourages such parties to take action to recover those damages, not only for themselves but because damages actions act as a powerful deterrent for potential future cartelists.
• The Commission's started the investigation on its own initiative using information brought to its attention. This led to surprise inspections in January 2004 at the premises of lift and escalator manufacturers throughout Europe. In turn, these inspections triggered many applications from the companies for immunity or reduction of fines under the Commission's 2002 Leniency Notice (see IP/02/247 and MEMO/02/23).
• The evidence uncovered in the inspections showed that the companies ran illegal cartels in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. This was further confirmed by numerous documents and corporate statements provided by the leniency applicants.
• The companies allocated tenders and other contracts for the sale, installation, maintenance and modernisation of lifts and escalators with the aim of freezing market shares and fixing prices. Business secrets and confidential information on bidding patterns and prices between the cartel participants were also exchanged. Projects that were rigged included lifts and escalators for hospitals, railway stations, shopping centres and commercial buildings.
• The allocation of projects was similar in all four Member States. The companies informed each other of calls for tender and co-ordinated their bids according to their pre-agreed cartel quotas. Fake bids, too high to be accepted, were lodged by the companies who were not supposed to win the tender, in order to give the impression of genuine competition. The companies kept and circulated amongst themselves updated project lists for Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. In Germany and The Netherlands, it was often agreed that the company that had a longstanding or good relationship with a particular customer should secure most of that customer's contracts; referred to by the companies as the "existing customers remain" principle.
• High-ranking national management (such as managing directors, sales and services directors and heads of customer service departments) participated in regular meetings and discussions. There is evidence that the companies were aware that their behaviour was illegal and they took care to avoid detection; they usually met in bars and restaurants, they travelled to the countryside or even abroad, and they used pre-paid mobile phone cards to avoid tracking.
• In their responses to the Commission's Statement of Objections, the companies did not contest the facts found by the Commission, and none of them requested an oral hearing.
• Then EC Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, stated:

“It is outrageous that the construction and maintenance costs of buildings, including hospitals, have been artificially bloated by these cartels….The national management of these companies knew … they were doing … wrong [and] … tried to conceal their action ...”

• On June 13, 2008, the Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud Department of the EC announced they were bringing a private action since the EC, as a public institution, suffered direct damages from the elevator cartel. The cases have been filed against the cartelists in Belgium's Tribunal de Commerce. 

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld

The ECCF is being co-funded and managed by Hausfeld Services LLC, a dedicated provider of funding support services for international disputes.

London based Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.  

The partners of Hausfeld & Co LLP and Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

The order deals only with the lockout. Judge Nelson left for another day any rulings on the legality of the NFL's other alleged restraints of trade.

Eller and the other plaintiffs allege that the NFL and its member teams have conspired to violate the federal antitrust laws through a group boycott, namely the lockout.  The admitted purpose of this group boycott, according to the complaint, is to coerce the plaintiffs and the other players to agree to a new anticompetitive system of player restraints that will, among other things, drastically reduce prospective player compensation levels and benefit levels for former players. 

According to one of the attorneys, Michael D. Hausfeld, "This lawsuit represents a significant addition to the existing suit brought predominantly by current players who were formerly represented by the union." 

For additional information please contact:

Michael Hausfeld

Tel: 202-540-7158

mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

 According to the Complaint, Sony heavily promoted that purchasers could utilize the on the “Other OS” feature on the PS3 console to install a Linux operating system and then use the PS3 as a personal  computer in addition to a gaming console.  Sony also promoted that users would be able to upgrade the computer features through firmware updates during the expected ten-year life of the console.  In early 2010, however, Sony made a decision to remove the “Other OS” feature through a firmware update. Sony claimed that this was for “security” reasons.  The Complaint alleges, however, that Sony removed the feature because it was too expensive to maintain and researchers were buying the PS3 to use it solely as a computer, causing financial losses to Sony who hoped to make up the below cost  sales price of the PS3 on sales of games and other accessories. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Sony had no justification to remove an advertised and core feature of the PS3.  

The case, In re PS3 “Other OS” Litigation, has been pending in federal court in the Northern District of California in front of Judge Richard Seeborg since April 2010.  Judge Seeborg dismissed several of the claims in February 2011, finding that the initial Complaint had not alleged sufficient facts, but granted Plaintiffs’ leave to amend. Judge Seeborg did allow the Plaintiffs’ “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act” claim to go forward because Sony could not show that its use of the “Other OS” firmware update to remove the feature was authorized.  The new Complaint contains over 88 pages of detailed allegations contending that Sony promoted the computer features of the PS3 for the life of the product and had no permission to remove a core feature from the PS3 after consumers purchased it. 

“The millions of PS3 owners in this country deserved better from Sony. These loyal customers spent hundreds of dollars on a PS3 that was advertised as being able to function as a computer distinguishing it from its competitors. Sony took that feature away without justification and has essentially told consumers we can turn the PS3 into a $600 paper weight and you have no recourse,” said Rosemary Rivas of Finkelstein Thompson, one of the Lead Counsel in the case.  

Co-Lead counsel James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld added, “Sony’s actions are like a car manufacturer telling a buyer that it is going to remove the engine because it does not want to service the part anymore and then telling the consumer, ‘tough luck, we are not going to give you a refund.’ This type of activity is exactly what our country’s consumer protection laws were designed to protect against.” Co-Lead counsel Jim Quadra of Calvo Fisher & Jacob agreed. “Once you buy a product, the manufacturer is not entitled to remove parts of it. Courts have repeatedly found that consumers are entitled to the benefits of their bargains.”

~END~

For more information or a copy of the Complaint, please contact James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld LLP,  202-540-7154/703-587-6474.

Hausfeld LLP and Pels Anderson LLC, have jointly filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of Ms. Ana C. Estrada and a nationwide class of similarly situated consumers who were current on their monthly mortgages with Bank of America but nonetheless were reported to credit bureaus by Bank of America as being delinquent in their mortgage payments. Leopold Kuvin PA and Williams Cuker Berezofsky are serving as co-counsel on the case. Copies of the complaint are available at http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

As a result of this conduct, “Plaintiff began to receive correspondence from her other creditors . . . informing her that her accounts were being closed out because of the negative reporting on her credit reports.” Even after Ms. Estrada formally disputed the false information with the credit bureau, Bank of America has failed to correct the inaccuracies and false reporting on Ms. Estrada’s credit report. As a result of Bank of America’s false statements and omissions, consumers like Ms. Estrada have suffered, among other things, severe damage to their credit history.    

Jon Pels, a partner with Pels Anderson LLC, stated: “Bank of America’s callous disregard for providing accurate information to consumer credit bureaus is truly egregious. Even more shocking is their unwillingness to correct the false information after being notified by both the consumer and the credit bureau of a dispute. This is exactly the type of activity that our country’s consumer protection laws were designed to protect against. Consumers should be able to trust their banking institutions to tell the truth.”  Gregg Weiss, a partner with Leopold Kuvin, P.A. agreed: “it is unfortunately ironic that Ms. Estrada did everything she was asked to do by Bank of America, while in the meantime Bank of America damaged Ms. Estrada by unjustifiably, and falsely, reporting that she had not.  We will achieve justice for her and any others who have been put through the same situation.” Rich Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP, stated that “Consumers should examine their credit reports for false reporting and pursue their rights if they find similar conduct by Bank of America.”

If during the course of your evaluation for a modification program through Bank of America anywhere in the U.S., you remained current on your monthly mortgage payments, but were reported to a credit bureau as being delinquent in your payments, you should immediately send a letter disputing the false information to a credit reporting agency, including any documentation which would support your position that you are not delinquent. For more information on your rights, please contact Justin Reiner at (301) 986-5570 or Richard Lewis at (202)540-7200.

About the firms:

Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. Through class actions and other representations, Hausfeld LLP has successfully enforced consumer rights under Federal and state laws, resulting in the recovery of billions of dollars in compensation and benefits for hundreds of thousands of consumers. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

Pels Anderson LLC focuses on civil trial work including unfair and deceptive acts and practices and class action work. The firm won the 2007 Trial Lawyers of the Year Award by the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association for its work in Ellerbe, et al. v. Chesapeake Mobile Homes, Inc., et al. and Royal v. Eastern Homes, Inc. These precedent setting cases required numerous counties to require footers to the frost line for manufactured homes in the State of Maryland, something many counties had not previously been requiring. In addition, Pels Anderson LLC recently paid out $881,080.35 in cash to improve mobile home parks throughout the State of Maryland as a result of a Cy Pres fund for the two cases which were certified by two different Courts. The firm has litigated cases throughout the country and its main offices are in Bethesda, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia. For additional information about Pels Anderson LLC and its services, please visit http://www.pallaw.com

Leopold Kuvin PA is national boutique litigation firm, specializing in consumer fraud, product liability, class action, managed care and complex commercial litigation, based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Leopold Kuvin’s attorneys have been recognized in Florida and nationally for their successful pursuit of justice for their clients in state and federal courts. For additional information about Leopold Kuvin PA and its services, please visit http://www.leopoldkuvin.com.

Williams Cuker Berezofsky has been committed to protecting the personal, civil and consumer rights of individuals since 1985. With offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Williams Cuker Berezofsky has worked to stop unfair business practices and to advance the rights of consumers to get what they paid for. We have brought many state and national consumer class action cases on behalf of consumers who are fighting back against a wide array of abusive sales and lending practices. We have successfully challenged violations of state usury and consumer fraud statutes, and established precedents expanding the rights of home buyers and prohibiting businesses from using mandatory arbitration clauses to contract out of liability under the consumer protection laws. For additional information about Williams Cuker Berezofsky and its services, please visit http://www.wcblegal.com.

Oscar Robertson among former college athletes suing NCAA, Electronic Arts- Bloomberg

Robertson joins suit vs. NCAA- Yahoo Sports

Hoops legend 'Big O' joins NCAA Antitrust, IP fight- Law 360

Oscar Robertson, college basketball and NBA great, sues NCAA- Cleveland Plain Dealer

As the newest antitrust partner, Mr. Bailey, who practices in the firm’s San Francisco office, has worked on multidistrict antitrust matters including In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1827 (N.D. Cal.), alleging a conspiracy by manufacturers to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels used in products such as computer monitors, televisions, and cell phones; In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), alleging price fixing of rail freight fuel surcharges by the nation’s dominant freight-shipping railroads, and In re Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Litigation, MDL 2007 (C.D. Cal.), a case alleging a conspiracy by manufacturers to fix prices of aftermarket auto lights and lamps.  Other cases Mr. Bailey has worked on include Bruce Foods Corporation vs. SK Foods, LP. et al., (E.D. Cal.), alleging a conspiracy by processors to fix prices of processed tomato products, and In re Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation (N.D. Cal.) a case alleging antitrust violations by the NCAA and its member schools involving the commercial use of the likenesses of its student-athletes. 

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Bailey was an attorney at a former law firm in Washington, D.C. as a member of its antitrust practice group. He also was employed at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP where he worked on antitrust, securities fraud and consumer fraud class action cases. 

Reena Gambhir works in the firm’s DC office where she handles international and domestic antitrust/competition and human rights cases. In the international antitrust/competition field, among other matters, Ms. Gambhir currently represents purchasers of marine hose worldwide who seek a recovery of overcharges as a result of a global price-fixing cartel.  This case resulted in a 2010 landmark private global settlement agreement in the matter with cartelist Parker ITR and the launching of an action in the London High Court against cartelist Dunlop. 

• Electrical carbon and graphite products are used to transfer electricity in and to electrical motors for a wide range of applications. These include the automobile industry (electric car windows, starters, air conditioning), public transport (trains, metro, trams) and virtually all consumer goods equipped with a motor (vacuum cleaners, shavers, etc). Mechanical carbon and graphite products are used, for instance, to seal dangerous gases and liquids in pumps, compressors and turbines. The European market for the products concerned is worth around €290 million a year.
• After a careful investigation, which started in September 2001 with an immunity application by British company Morgan Crucible Company plc, the Commission has concluded that the latter plus Carbone Lorraine S.A. of France, German companies Schunk GmbH and Schunk Kohlenstofftechnik GmbH (which are treated as one company for the purpose of this decision), SGL Carbon A.G. and C. Conradty Nürnberg GmbH, and Austrian company Hoffmann & Co. Elektrokohle AG (now part of the Schunk Group) have participated in a cartel in the European Economic Area.
• According to the information assembled by the Commission, the six companies operated a secret cartel between October 1988 and December 1999. During this period the companies, which control 93% of the European market, held more than 140 meetings to decide price increases for a broad range of products as well as for large individual customers and to ward off outside competition by undercutting the few rivals left. The top meetings, which they called 'summits', provided strategic direction and solved problems while the detailed price and other arrangements were worked out and agreed in 'technical committee' meetings. None of the companies involved has seriously disputed the facts ascertained by the Commission.
• On 3 December 2003, the Commission announced that it has imposed fines totalling €101.44 million on Carbone Lorraine, SGL, Schunk, and two other companies for operating a cartel in the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products, principally used to transfer electricity to and in electrical motors. Applications include electric car windows, shavers and vacuum cleaners as well as railway applications (carbon traction brushes).
• As Morgan Crucible was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel it received full immunity from fines.  

The announcement follows a three year investigation by the EC into price-fixing and cartel activity in which investigators discovered a conspiracy by most of the world’s major airlines to fix the price of air freight services, including by means of a range of surcharges. To read the full Commission press release, please visit: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1487&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

Hausfeld & Co LLP commenced proceedings against British Airways in the English High Court on behalf of two lead claimants on September 18, 2008. The lead claimants are seeking a declaration of the court as to BA’s joint and several liability to pay damages to all direct and indirect purchasers of air freight services from the cartelists. Hausfeld is also instructed by hundreds of companies from across the globe, including some of Europe’s biggest brand names, who may be added to the High Court claim in due course.   

On July 14, 2010, BA made an application to the court to add 34 additional co-cartelists to the High Court claim as contributors for the purposes of contributing towards the liability to claimants arising from the cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP said:

"Clearly we are delighted with the Commission’s decision which reflects cartel behaviour on an unprecedented global scale affecting a vast range of industries and businesses. Today's decision means that these airlines cannot now sensibly seek to avoid their liabilities. Our client’s action in the UK High Court now includes all of BA’s co-conspirators, and we are absolutely determined to seek financial redress on their behalf.  Since the launch of our High Court representative action against BA, we have been retained by hundreds of clients who are prepared to join this action and are in the process of getting retained by many more. We would now urge the airlines involved to seek sensible commercial resolutions of their liabilities or otherwise face determined litigation, costs exposure and reputational damage."

Separately, Hausfeld LLP, Co-Lead Counsel for the US direct purchaser class, has been instrumental in reaching settlements with Lufthansa, American Airlines, JAL, SAS, ANA and Air France-KLM, totaling more than $200 million, with respect to their liabilities arising from the cartel for traffic to, from or within the US. These settlements, other than the Lufthansa settlement, cover direct purchasers of air cargo but do not cover purchases of air cargo made by shippers through freight forwarders, leaving the many European shippers with indirect purchases to, from, or within the US uncompensated for their loss arising out of the cartel. 

However, now that the EC has reached its decision, the damages actions can proceed as ‘follow on’ actions based on the Commission decision. Article 16 of EU Regulation 1/2003 provides, “When National Courts rule on (decisions involving cartels) which are already the subject of a Commission decision, they cannot take decisions running counter to the decision adopted by the Commission.” This means that the victims will not have to prove to Courts in England or the Netherlands that the airlines are guilty of anti competitive conduct and the cases can precede effectively as ‘liability admitted’. It will still be necessary to prove the amount of loss caused by the cartel.

The Commission has found that instead of letting market forces dictate prices for freight, the airlines conspired to fix prices. In addition, outside of Europe, multiple airlines have pleaded guilty to conspiring to fix prices between 2000 and 2007.  

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Lindsay Root

Tel: 202-540-7158

lroot@hausfeldllp.com

NOTES TO EDITORS

About Hausfeld & Co LLP and Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world. 

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

For further information please visit: www.hausfeldllp.com

Hausfeld & litigation funding company Claims Funding International (CFI) have signed a formal co-operation agreement to co-ordinate the pursuit of claims for shippers within the EU. CFI commenced litigation on September 30, 2010 against Air France-KLM and Martinair in the Netherlands. Between them CFI and Hausfeld separately represent more than €6bn of combined air cargo traffic purchased by shippers in the cartel period on multiple continents including several among the Fortune Global 500 and Forbes Global 2000 as well as both the Business Week and Interbrand 100 Best Global Brand. These companies have claims for compensation in Europe resulting from the loss they suffered as a result of the actions of the cartel.

pdfserver.amlaw.com/law/Baltimore_Best_Lawyers_2011.pdf

Read complete article here.

• Car glass is specially reinforced glass that is used for windscreens, side and rear windows and sun-roofs. In 2008 the market in the EEA was estimated to be worth €2 billion.
• For periods between 10 March 1998 and 11 March 2003 manufacturers of car glass discussed target prices, market sharing and customer allocation in a series of meetings and other illicit contacts.
• The European Commission started its investigation on the basis of information provided by an anonymous informant leading to surprise inspections in 2005 at several sites of car glass producers in Europe.
• On 12 November 2008 the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €1,383,896,000 on 4 corporate groups, Asahi, Pilkington, Saint-Gobain and Soliver for their participation in the cartel.   A copy of the Commission Announcement can be found at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1685&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
• The four company groups together controlled approximately 90% of the automotive glass used in the EEA in new cars and for branded replacement glass for cars.
• Asahi had its fine reduced by 50% under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice based on its co-operation and provision of additional information during the Commission Investigation.
• The fine imposed on Saint-Gobain was increased by 60% on the basis it was a “repeat offender” having previously been fined for cartel activities.  

For more information, please visit: http://www.trex.com/legal/classactionsettlement.aspx

For additionaly information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

Hausfeld LLP Partner William P. Butterfield Appointed to the Masters Conference Advisory Cabinet

ORLANDO, Fla., June 15, 2010 - The Masters Conference, an advanced legal educational experience, announced today that it has appointed Hausfeld LLP Partner William P. Butterfield as a new Advisory Cabinet member for the conference. Hausfeld LLP is a global claimants’ law firm dedicated to handling large and complex litigation matters for individuals, corporations and organizations. The appointment reflects Mr. Butterfield’s longstanding role in helping to shape and advance legal practice in the field of electronic discovery (e-discovery).

“I am honored to join this diverse group of thought leaders in the field of information management,” said William P. Butterfield, Partner at Hausfeld LLP.

The Masters Conference Advisory Cabinet is comprised of e-discovery, library, records management and research thought leaders and government officials who are committed to upholding the advanced educational level of the Masters Conference. As a think tank for global thought leadership, the Advisory Cabinet will collaborate on methods to improve management of the information lifecycle for the benefit of the legal community at large. It is also charged with ensuring that the Masters Conference upholds its mission of providing an elite educational forum where all participants benefit from the educational message.

Butterfield is on the Steering Committee of The Sedona Conference® Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Case for Cooperation (2009) and was a co-editor of The Sedona Conference® Commentary on Preservation, Identification and Management of Sources of Information That Are Not Reasonably Accessible (2008). He is also a member of The Sedona Conference® Working Group on International Electronic Information Management, Discovery and Disclosure. In addition to his work for The Sedona Conference®, Mr. Butterfield is also on the faculty of Georgetown University Law Center’s Advanced E-Discovery Institute and speaks frequently at conferences and workshops worldwide on e-discovery issues.

For more information on the Masters Conference, visit www.themastersconference.com.

About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, D.C., is a global law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

About the Masters Conference

Since 2006, the Masters Conference has brought together experts and leading professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to discuss strategies, practices and resources for managing the information lifecycle. The Masters Conference is an intimate forum where legal industry professionals can share, collaborate and obtain master knowledge of the most relevant topics in the legal industry today. By limiting attendance to 350 delegates, the Masters Conference is meant to be an exclusive opportunity to learn and network with the top legal professionals in the industry without battling large crowds and an overwhelming vendor hall. For additional information on the Masters Conference, please visit www.themastersconference.com.

Media Contacts:
Masters Conference       
Marilyn Gladden      
Global Client Relations Director     
407-491-6911       
Marilyn.gladden@themastersconference.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it    
 

Hausfeld LLP was also listed by the US Legal 500 Publication as one of the top antitrust plaintiffs’ firms in the country in 2009.

Read complete article here

Daily Telegraph- BA and Virgin passengers urged to claim refunds

Over 15,000 students paid approximately $2,500 in tuition costs to attend one of Envision’s youth conferences in Washington, DC during the January 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama.  Due to the unprecedented nature of the inauguration itself and the numerous program attendees, many students alleged that they did not receive everything that Envision had promised, including exclusive access to witness the inauguration and inaugural parade or tickets to an inaugural ball.  Plaintiffs filed separate class action suits in Illinois and Washington, DC that were eventually consolidated in DC.  After an extensive mediation in front of the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (retired) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, the parties reached a settlement and sought approval from the court. 

The settlement provides any class members dissatisfied with the conferences - including those living in foreign countries - with two, fully transferable vouchers (worth $1,250) that can be redeemed towards any future Envision program.  The vouchers can be used for up to seven years.   Envision offers numerous educational programs for youth across the country and during the redemption period will host approximately 2,450 conferences for 340,000 students.  

In approving the settlement, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected the arguments of 22 state Attorney Generals who objected to the settlement as unfair holding that “the vouchers to be awarded under the settlement provide meaningful value to class members because of their high face value, their transferability, and their seven-year duration.”  She also found that the settlement provided a minimum payout which encompassed the profit that Envision had made on the conferences.

James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP and one of the Class Counsel, stated, “This is a significant settlement providing vouchers worth approximately 50% of each class members’ tuition costs.  While Envision did not have the resources available to provide direct refunds, we believe that this settlement puts significant value into the hands of consumers.” 

“We are pleased that the court has approved this settlement and we encourage all class members to make claims.  Even if class members do not want to use the vouchers themselves, they can be sold to any of the thousands of students who will attend a future program during the redemption period.”

Class members can obtain more information at: http://www.dc2009-settlement.com/.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law.  In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London.  For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

Over 15,000 students paid approximately $2,500 in tuition costs to attend one of Envision’s youth conferences in Washington, DC during the January 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama.  Due to the unprecedented nature of the inauguration itself and the numerous program attendees, many students alleged that they did not receive everything that Envision had promised, including exclusive access to witness the inauguration and inaugural parade or tickets to an inaugural ball. 

In May 2009, Hausfeld LLP, along with DiMuroGinsberg PC, jointly filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the students who had paid to attend the conferences. A separate class action against Envision, filed in Illinois, was eventually consolidated with the Hausfeld suit in Washington. After an extensive mediation in front of the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (retired) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, the parties reached a settlement and sought approval from the court. 

The settlement provides any class members dissatisfied with the conferences - including those living in foreign countries - with two, fully transferable vouchers (worth $1,250) that can be redeemed towards any future Envision program.  The vouchers can be used for up to seven years.   Envision offers numerous educational programs for youth across the country and during the redemption period will host approximately 2,450 conferences for 340,000 students.  

In approving the settlement, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected the arguments of 22 state Attorney Generals who objected to the settlement as unfair holding that “the vouchers to be awarded under the settlement provide meaningful value to class members because of their high face value, their transferability, and their seven-year duration.”  She also found that the settlement provided a minimum payout which encompassed the profit that Envision had made on the conferences.

James Pizzirusso, a partner at Hausfeld LLP and one of the Class Counsel, stated, “This is a significant settlement providing vouchers worth approximately 50% of each class members’ tuition costs.  While Envision did not have the resources available to provide direct refunds, we believe that this settlement puts significant value into the hands of consumers.” 

“We are pleased that the court has approved this settlement and we encourage all class members to make claims.  Even if class members do not want to use the vouchers themselves, they can be sold to any of the thousands of students who will attend a future program during the redemption period.”

Class members can obtain more information at: www.dc2009-settlement.com/.

USA Today: NCAA lawsuit over player images expands its reach

Sports Illustrated: Lawsuit against NCAA could lead to end of amateurism

National Public Radio: Athletes' Case May Rewrite Money Rules For NCAA

In a preliminary hearing U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon ruled that a plan by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. to use the air conditioners was not reliable and that expert testimony about their use would not be considered in the main hearing set to begin on February 19, 2010.

Richard Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP, handled the oral argument on this issue.

Michael Hausfeld, the lead counsel for the Khulumani group and Hausfeld LLP chairman, says the overall case is extremely significant. "It represents the first time post World War II where corporate accountability is clearly under scrutiny for not merely moral lapses but for legal obligations," he said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

February 17, 2010 - Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP and other attorneys on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the Chinese Manufactured Drywall MDL successfully argued a Daubert motion which lead to the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon striking significant parts of the remediation plan proposed by Knauf.  Click here for Judge Fallon's Order.

First Chinese Drywall Class Actions Filed in Virginia and North Carolina
Service on International Defendants Proceeds

Washington, DC – May 21, 2009 – Hausfeld LLP, Levin Fishbein and Colson Hicks – the three firms that filed the first major Chinese drywall class action (Vickers v. Knauf Gips, et al.,) in the Southern District of Florida – announced that they have expanded the scope of litigation and filed the first statewide defective drywall class actions on behalf of Virginia and North Carolina residents negatively impacted by defective drywall in their homes.

It has been estimated that 550 million pounds of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States from 2004 to 2006 to address a domestic shortage caused by a peaking housing boom, as well as hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In addition to creating noxious, “rotten egg-like” odors, gases from the defective drywall cause the accelerated corrosion of air conditioner and refrigerator coils, kitchen appliances and utensils, electrical wiring, electronic or computer devices, and other metal surfaces and household items. Long-term exposure to low-levels of sulfides has also been associated with several health conditions including fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, dizziness, and ear, nose and throat irritation.

About the Virginia and North Carolina Complaints
The Virginia and North Carolina statewide class action complaints target a Chinese drywall manufacturer (Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.), as well as a U.S. supplier (Venture Supply, Inc.) and drywall installation contractor (The Porter-Blaine Corp.). The group filed the Germano action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009, and the Hinkley action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 15, 2009.

Both complaints seek relief from Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese drywall manufacturer whose parent company is a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese government. The Germano clients through their Virginia counsel, Richard Serpe, of Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P.C., and the Hinkley clients through their North Carolina counsel, Michael Malone, of Hendren & Malone, PLLC, have suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of Florida as the venue best suited to handle the related litigation given the important sources of discovery and other cases pending there.

Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP stated: “It is clear now that the problems with defective Chinese drywall are not limited to Florida and Louisiana, but are national in scope. Our clients in Virginia and North Carolina are being impacted by the same problems with defective drywall that other homeowners across the country are experiencing. Similarly, the sulfur leaching issues are not limited to drywall that was manufactured in China. We are finding more and more homes containing drywall made by U.S. manufacturers showing the same corroded metal surfaces.”

Potential Issues with U.S.-Made Drywall
The Vickers counsel are also now studying problems reported with drywall manufactured in the United States. Presently under investigation are fairly new homes containing U.S.-made drywall that are producing effects similar to homes containing defective Chinese drywall; and the attorneys are carrying on extensive testing of both the U.S. drywall in these homes, as well as the corroded and blackened electrical and HVAC components.

Progress in Vickers Florida Class Action
The Vickers counsel have also made significant progress in serving their legal complaints on the Taiwanese and German defendants in the Vickers class action, filed in the Southern District of Florida. On May 13, 2009, Judge Moore of the Southern District of Florida issued an Order requesting the Judicial Authority of Taiwan to serve the Vickers complaint on Rothschilt International Limited, a Taiwanese entity, which was the primary distributor for Chinese drywall manufactured by Knauf, a product associated with widespread problems in Florida. Vickers counsel also obtained an Order from the Southern District of Florida authorizing Service of Process on other international defendants, such as Kanuf, under the Hague Convention. Vickers’ approved International Process Server, APS International Limited, has reported that the Vickers Complaint and Summons have been received by the Ministry of Justice of the Peoples’ Republic of China, thus accomplishing, an intermediate step in perfecting service on the Taiwanese defendant.

Copies of the drywall complaints will be available at www.chinesedrywallclaims.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or email James Pizzirusso or Richard Lewis.

Media Contact
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
 

Recently, Hausfeld LLP filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA on behalf of former student athletes. The suit alleges that the NCAA violated federal antitrust law by foreclosing former players from receiving any compensation related to the use of their images and likenesses. The case is In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likness Licensing Litigation.

The news story can be seen, and the accompanying article read, at the following address:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/verdict-unsealed-in-prempro-cancer-case-112409

The evidence at these trials showed Wyeth's unrelenting campaign to make billions of dollars in profit from these drugs while keeping the truth about the drugs' secret. Jurors were shocked to learn that:

• Wyeth was on notice of the need to study whether combination hormone therapy causes breast cancer as early as 1975 but failed to conduct a single breast cancer study over the course of the next three decades - despite over a dozen red flags that breast cancer was a safety problem;

•  Instead of studying the breast cancer risk, Wyeth took active steps to downplay, dismiss and contain the release of data from other institutions' studies that showed such risk;

• Even worse, Wyeth ghost-wrote dozens of medical articles that minimized the breast cancer risk and exaggerated the benefits of hormone therapy and then published these articles in reputable medical journals under independent doctors' names;

•  The world did not learn the truth until a government study was stopped early because of breast cancer;

• Studies now confirm that 200,000 women -grandmothers, mothers, sisters and wives - would not have suffered breast cancer but for their use of combination hormone therapy drugs.

Today's verdicts clearly show that jurors will be outraged when they hear how Wyeth put huge profits ahead of patient safety. Just last month, a legal ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that Wyeth did wrong and that juries should be permitted to hear this evidence and determine whether the company should be punished. In the words of Robert Peck, President of the Constitutional Law Center, this ruling shows that "Wyeth's behavior outraged these judges."

As Michael Richmond, jury foreperson in a Prempro trial, explains: "Wyeth had no concern whatsoever for the health of the patients. They were only concerned about their profits." These verdicts - with significant punitive awards - confirm the anger of a community when the truth is learned.

Hausfeld LLP Partner Richard Lewis serves on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee appointed to oversee the MDL for the hormone therapy drug cases.

Of the twelve verdicts to date, Plaintiffs have been awarded money by ten of the twelve juries. Every jury that has been permitted to deliberate on punitive damages has returned substantial punitive damage awards. In addition, thirteen women have settled their hormone therapy claims with Wyeth or Pfizer.

The verdicts released today are:

Donna Kendall v. Wyeth (Phila. CCP, June Term, 2004, No. 0965):

Jury Verdict:

Compensatory Damages: $6,300,000

Punitive Damages: $28,000,000

For more information about the Kendall case, please contact trial counsel Tobi Millrood at tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com or (610) 941-4204.

Connie Barton v. Wyeth (Phila. CCP, April Term 2004, NO. 06301):

Jury Verdict:

Compensatory Damages: $3,746,344

Punitive Damages: $75,000,000

For more information about the Barton case, please contact trial counsel Zoe Littlepage at zoe@littlepagebooth.com or (713) 529-8000.

Hausfeld LLP serves as co-lead counsel in this case, where in September 2008 the parties reached a $33 million settlement that was later approved by the Court on December 29, 2008. The distribution of settlement funds announced today will be made available to over one thousand Class members around the country, including university laboratories studying the genetic basis of disease, leading cancer institutes and medical centers, state and local police departments, and forensic laboratories engaged in crime investigation.

1,256 claimants will participate in the settlement fund and recover over 15% of their purchases across the relevant product groups at issue in the case – a substantial recovery for cases of this nature.

“Our ability to achieve a strong recovery and claims rate in this case ensures that the maximum number of Class members will significantly benefit from the distribution of Taq settlement funds announced today,” said Brian Ratner, Partner, Hausfeld LLP. “Class members in this case make a critically important contribution to the nation’s health and safety: university laboratories across the country, leading cancer institutes, medical centers and other impacted organizations can apply these funds to their respective and very worthy causes.”

Additional Case Information
In Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., et al., Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, sought to recover the supra-competitive overcharges it and other direct purchasers paid as a result of defendants’ alleged scheme to fraudulently obtain a patent on Taq and to use that patent to force competitors out of the market so defendants could charge monopoly prices for Taq. Plaintiff also claimed that defendants’ fraudulent procurement and enforcement of the Taq patent inhibited, among other things, potential advances in molecular biology and pathology, and the treatment of life-threatening diseases such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. Taq is used to allow scientists and researchers to work with DNA.

For more information about the case and settlement, visit: http://www.hausfeldllp.com/pages/current_investigations/156/taq
or
http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com/taq/.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of antitrust/competition law, consumer fraud, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

Washington, DC – October 30, 2009 – Hausfeld LLP, which represents numerous states, cities and counties that are plaintiffs in a massive municipal bond antitrust lawsuit, hails yesterday’s action by the U.S. Department of Justice charging co-defendant CDR Financial Products Inc. with participating in fraud and bid-rigging in the municipal bond market.

The nine-count indictment filed in New York federal court asserts that CDR and three of its executives, for a period of several years, manipulated the bidding process for municipal derivatives, accepted kickbacks from bidders, and undermined what was supposed to be a competitive bidding process.

“The collusion orchestrated by CDR Financial and major financial institutions extends back several years in what has become a trillion dollar a year industry victimizing dozens of states, counties and cities,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman, Hausfeld LLP. “We fully support yesterday’s action by the DOJ as it reaffirms allegations we have made against these defendants in the civil antitrust complaint, and further undermines claims made by CDR Financial that there is no basis for the case against them.”  

In August 2008, Hausfeld LLP – along with other co-lead counsel Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP – filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of several state, local and municipal governments against thirty seven leading banks, insurance companies and brokers alleging widespread price-fixing and bid-rigging in the trillion dollar municipal derivatives industry dating back to 1992. The lawsuits came on the heels of an unprecedented investigation by the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Securities and Exchange Commission into industry-wide collusive practices in the two hundred year old municipal bond industry. An amended class action complaint was filed in June 2009.

Megan Jones, Partner at Hausfeld LLP, said that class counsel was not surprised by the DOJ indictment.  “Given the level of detail in our complaint, which includes paraphrased contents of tape recorded conversations among conspirators, it’s no shock to us that the DOJ (who has the tapes themselves) is coming down with indictments like this,”  said Jones. “For the hundreds of municipalities deprived of competition for these deals, this accountability is welcome news.”

Additional information on the Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation and copies of the class action complaint can be found here. Michael Hausfeld is joined by Michael Lehmann, Robert Eisler, Megan Jones and Faris Ghareeb of Hausfeld LLP on the complaint.

About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

-###-

Key Facts In Civil Complaint

• Defendants in the municipal derivatives antitrust litigation are: AIG Financial Products Corp.; AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.; GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc.; Genworth Financial Inc.; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; Société Générale SA; UBS AG; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Morgan Stanley; Wachovia Bank N.A.; Natixis S.A.; Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd.; Financial Security Assurance, Inc.; Financial Guaranty Insurance Company; Trinity Funding Co. LLC; Piper Jaffray & Co.; Security Capital Assurance Inc.; XL Asset Funding Company LLC; XL Life Insurance & Annuity, Inc.; National Westminster Bank plc; or Bank of America N.A.
• Municipal derivatives are used to invest the proceeds of municipal bonds. Because municipal bonds commonly fund multi-year public works projects, most of their proceeds cannot be spent immediately, and must be invested to earn interest until they are ripe for use. These investment vehicles are known as municipal derivatives, an umbrella term that refers to various tax-exempt vehicles, including guaranteed investment contracts, advance refunding escrows, swaps, options, swaptions, collars, and floors.
• As a result of this conspiracy, the plaintiffs and other class members were deprived of extra money they otherwise would have received from their municipal bond investments and could have spent on important public works projects such as roads, buildings, and mass transit.
• The lawsuits also follow Bank of America’s conditional acceptance into the Antitrust Division’s amnesty program, in connection with which there was disclosure of information regarding the conspiracy described below and the promise to provide full and complete cooperation to the Antitrust Division and the plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Bunche served as legal advisor to Liberia's Minister of Finance and worked in a broad range of areas, including legislative and regulatory reform of the tax and investment laws and the negotiation and implementation of concession (extractive and agricultural) and debt cancellation agreements. Before holding this position, he was an associate at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, focusing on antitrust and securities litigation.

Most recently, Mr. Gosselin served as a staff law clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2007-2009). During law school, he was an extern with the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin, Texas; a summer law clerk with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid; and a summer associate with two law firms in civil rights and antitrust litigation.

Ms. Kenney served as senior policy analyst for Consumers' Union, a national consumer advocacy organiziation and publisher of Consumer Reports; she was also a legislative assistant for U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Herb Kohl (D-WI). Most recently, Ms. Kenney received her J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center (magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, 2009), where she was a member of the Goergetown University Law Journal and an editor of the Journal's 2009 Annual Review of Criminal Procedure.

"The three new associates joining the firm have distinguished themselves professionally and academically in unique and diverse ways in the antitrust arena," said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman, Hausfeld LLP. "Most importantly, each brings the type of forward-thinking and creative approach that our firm relies upon to address the global challenges facing our clients."

According to a release by plaintiff’s firm Hausfeld LLP, whose Latin American partner firm, Rubio Alvarez Solis & Abrego filed the action, this is the first class action filed in Latin America against a non-Latin American defendant where foreign plaintiffs are allowed to join.

The class action follows a 1999 judgment by the US Department of Justice in which Roche agreed to pay $500 million for leading the conspiracy to fix prices and allocate market shares for several vitamins sold in the US and elsewhere. Three Roche executives also paid criminal fines and served prison sentences for their participation in the cartel.

In 2001, the European Commission fined Roche €462 million for its leading role in the price fixing and market sharing agreements, and because it participated in all of the vitamin cartels.

This is the second jurisdiction in which Hausfeld has attempted to bring a class action on behalf of foreign purchasers. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Ecuadorean shrimp and tilapia company Empagran’s case against Hoffman-La Roche that foreign purchasers could not bring claims in US courts under the Sherman Act where the injuries suffered in their home jurisdictions were separate from any effect experienced in the US. 
 

John Taladay at Howrey LLP in Washington, DC, says the plaintiffs bar is using Panamanian law, as few foreign jurisdictions permit a cause of action specifically against cartelists, and still fewer allow class action litigation.

“This is a form of missionary work by the plaintiffs bar to convert foreign jurisdictions to the class action religion,” Taladay says. “Panamanian law purportedly allows foreign plaintiffs with similar claims to join in the Panamanian class action whereas in the US the plaintiffs bar failed in the Empagran case to get the courts to recognise foreign plaintiffs’ claims, except when the foreign defendants’ claims are integral to the US claim.”
Taladay says this could have been a measure taken in order to keep forum shopping out of the US. “The US doesn’t want to become the international court of law for antitrust class actions.”

Michael Hausfeld at Hausfeld LLP in Washington says other non-Panamanian purchasers are currently “in discussions” over joining the new claim. “If claims from foreign companies cannot be brought in the US, there are laws in Latin America that encourage and permit such claims,” he says. “More and more of these cases will be filed in jurisdictions other than the US and European Union, allowing companies to obtain compensation no matter where the violations have taken place.”
 

The class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Industrias Lacteas, S.A. (formerly Procesadora Industrial) and Panamanian corporate and individual victims overcharged as a result of the alleged vitamins cartel. The lawsuit specifically alleges that Industrias Lacteas, S.A., a company that, among other activities, raises livestock, was overcharged in its purchases of bulk vitamins from Roche between January 1992 and March 1998. The claim also allows for a broader set of purchasers, from countries other than Panama, to join the class action.

“Hausfeld LLP is committed to pursuing with our partners and correspondents the private enforcement of global cartel activity in any jurisdiction where cartel victims can achieve redress for their economic harm,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “The class action lawsuit filed in Panama continues our long-standing efforts to provide such redress for victims of the unparalleled vitamins cartel.”

This lawsuit, filed in Panama under Panama’s Law 19 of 2008, is the first international class action filed in Latin America against a non-Latin American defendant, where foreign plaintiffs, with similar claims, are allowed to join. It is also the first Latin American class action involving a global cartel.

The Panama class action lawsuit seeks to extend the recent successes of Hausfeld LLP lawyers in recovering over a billion dollars in settlements for vitamin purchases victimized by the 10-year global price-fixing and market allocation cartel, including:

• In In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP serves as Co-Lead Counsel for two classes of U.S. direct vitamin purchasers in this decade-long litigation, which has included a landmark billion dollar partial settlement and a jury verdict of more than $148 million in a 2003 trial in the case (the 12th largest U.S. jury verdict in 2003).

• In Empagran, S.A., et al. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., et al. (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP lawyers represented foreign vitamin purchasers in this seminal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and clarified the scope of jurisdiction for foreign plaintiffs to pursue their claims in U.S. courts.

In 1999, Roche agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice a record $500 million fine for leading the worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares for certain vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Certain Roche executives pled guilty, paid criminal fines, and served prison sentences as a result of their participation in the cartel.

In 2001, the European Commission fined Roche €462 million for its role as the “instigator of the cartel” and because it participated in all of the vitamin cartels.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to its Washington headquarters, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

For additional information about Rubio, Alvarez, Solis & Abrego and its services, please visit http://www.rasalaw.com/.

The English text of Panama’s Law 19 of 2008 is available at http://www.interamericanbarfoundation.org/PanamaClassActionTextopulldown18.html.
 

The class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Industrias Lacteas, S.A. (formerly Procesadora Industrial) and Panamanian corporate and individual victims overcharged as a result of the alleged vitamins cartel. The lawsuit specifically alleges that Industrias Lacteas, S.A., a company that, among other activities, raises livestock, was overcharged in its purchases of bulk vitamins from Roche between January 1992 and March 1998. The claim also allows for a broader set of purchasers, from countries other than Panama, to join the class action.

“Hausfeld LLP is committed to pursuing with our partners and correspondents the private enforcement of global cartel activity in any jurisdiction where cartel victims can achieve redress for their economic harm,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “The class action lawsuit filed in Panama continues our long-standing efforts to provide such redress for victims of the unparalleled vitamins cartel.”

This lawsuit, filed in Panama under Panama’s Law 19 of 2008, is the first international class action filed in Latin America against a non-Latin American defendant, where foreign plaintiffs, with similar claims, are allowed to join. It is also the first Latin American class action involving a global cartel.

The Panama class action lawsuit seeks to extend the recent successes of Hausfeld LLP lawyers in recovering over a billion dollars in settlements for vitamin purchases victimized by the 10-year global price-fixing and market allocation cartel, including:

• In In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP serves as Co-Lead Counsel for two classes of U.S. direct vitamin purchasers in this decade-long litigation, which has included a landmark billion dollar partial settlement and a jury verdict of more than $148 million in a 2003 trial in the case (the 12th largest U.S. jury verdict in 2003).

• In Empagran, S.A., et al. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., et al. (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP lawyers represented foreign vitamin purchasers in this seminal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and clarified the scope of jurisdiction for foreign plaintiffs to pursue their claims in U.S. courts.

In 1999, Roche agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice a record $500 million fine for leading the worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares for certain vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Certain Roche executives pled guilty, paid criminal fines, and served prison sentences as a result of their participation in the cartel.

In 2001, the European Commission fined Roche €462 million for its role as the “instigator of the cartel” and because it participated in all of the vitamin cartels.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to its Washington headquarters, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

For additional information about Rubio, Alvarez, Solis & Abrego and its services, please visit http://www.rasalaw.com/.

The English text of Panama’s Law 19 of 2008 is available at http://www.interamericanbarfoundation.org/PanamaClassActionTextopulldown18.html.

The letter from South Africa’s Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York concluded the U.S. court is “an appropriate forum” to hear claims by South African citizens that the corporations aided and abetted “very serious crimes, such as torture [and] extrajudicial killing committed in violation of international law by the apartheid regime.” The South African government also offered its counsel to facilitate a possible resolution of the cases between the corporate defendants and the South African victims.

The South African government's submission to the Court indicates that its concerns about the lawsuits as originally framed have been satisfied and clears the way for a resolution on the merits of these important claims; and the letter reverses the South African government’s 2003 position that the lawsuits, in their original form, should be dismissed because the government believed the lawsuits might interfere with South Africa’s ability to address its apartheid past and might discourage economic investment in the country.

Background On The Two Lawsuits
These cases, which have been pending in U.S. courts for more than seven years, allege that the defendant companies – including Daimler, Ford, General Motors, IBM and German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall – aided and abetted apartheid crimes including torture, extrajudicial killing, and arbitrary denationalization. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in October 2008 that sought to address concerns that the South African government expressed about the initial lawsuits.

Comments From Legal Team
“The reversal by the South African government represents a monumental victory for victims of human rights abuses who have sought access to justice in U.S. courts and a victory in the arena of legal accountability for corporations and others who would provide substantial assistance in aid of the perpetration of such abuses,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “The South African government’s past opposition to these claims became the poster child of international corporations fighting the use of U.S. law permitting victims of egregious human rights violations to seek relief in U.S. courts.”

“The plaintiffs in these human rights cases are gratified by the South African government's support for their long-standing quest for some measure of justice in U.S. courts," said Paul Hoffman, lead counsel for the Ntsebeza plaintiffs, "and look forward to the South African government's contribution to a just and prompt resolution of their claims."

“By stating that the Southern District of New York is an appropriate venue for this case, the South African government sends the message that perpetrators of human rights violations can be brought to justice in U.S. courts,” said Susan Farbstein, a Lecturer on Law at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School. “For our plaintiffs, this letter represents a statement on behalf of the South Africa government in support of their struggle for accountability.”

“Our hope is that this brings us one step closer to justice for our plaintiffs and to collaboration between governments and victims to achieve redress for apartheid-era crimes,” said Diane Sammons of Nagel Rice LLP.

About Legal Team
Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm dedicated to handling large and complex litigation matters for individuals, corporations and organization, represents apartheid victims in one of the two cases, Balintulo v. Daimler AG, along with South African and other U.S. counsel. Another set of plaintiffs, those in Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG, are represented by U.S. counsel from Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Nagel Rice LLP, the law offices of Judith Brown Chomsky, and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, as well as South African counsel.

For additional information related to these cases and developments, please contact:
Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, 202.540.7200
Paul Hoffman, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, 301.396.0731

-###-

Media Contacts:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203

Michael Jones
Communications Director
International Human Rights Clinic
Harvard Law School
mijones@law.harvard.edu
617.495.9214

Related Documents

SA Ministry of Justice Letter to Judge Scheindlin (PDF, 97kb)

International claimant law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has launched its second High Court cartel action in the space of a month. The firm has commenced proceedings against industry giants Shell and Exxon Mobil for their involvement in the paraffin wax price fixing cartel. The cartel took place throughout Europe for a period of 13 years between 1992 and 2005 and involved seven other major producers of paraffin wax. The European paraffin wax market is estimated to be worth almost €500 million.

Paraffin wax is used in a wide variety of products including candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates. Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of several large European candle manufacturers, and is in the process of being instructed by additional candle manufacturers as well as other substantial wax purchasers seeking to take action against the cartelists. The sales at issue for all claimants run into the hundreds of millions of euros.

In October 2008 the European Commission imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin wax) for participating in the cartel. Shell was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission. Exxon Mobil was fined almost €84m. The infringement decision by the Commission forms the basis of this action against Shell and Exxon Mobil, because in follow-on damages actions before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the anti-competitive behaviour took place and was illegal.

In order to allow the claimants to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an innovative agreement with specialist after-the-event insurer FirstAssist Legal Protection to provide them with protection against disbursements and adverse costs risks arising from the case.

This is the second High Court cartel action that Hausfeld has launched in London in the space of a month, following its claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company against Dunlop for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. In September 2008 Hausfeld lawyers commenced proceedings against British Airways for its involvement in the air cargo cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The paraffin wax cartel operated for 13 years throughout Europe. This action has been commenced to offer our clients and potentially hundreds of other businesses who have been affected a means to recoup their considerable losses. We are able to offer claimants an innovative funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs for cartel actions and maximises their chances of recovery, and we would therefore urge those affected by the paraffin wax cartel to come forward and contact us.

“This is the third cartel action that we have launched in London during the space of a year, which demonstrates that the UK is increasingly becoming the European forum of choice for the private enforcement of cartel abuse.”

Background – the paraffin wax cartel

- Paraffin waxes are used in a wide variety of products such as candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates, the wax coating on cheese, chemicals, tyres and car components as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. The market is estimated to be worth almost €500m. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes.

- Between 3 September 1992 and 28 April 2005, the producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax operated a cartel in which they, amongst other things, fixed prices for paraffin waxes.

- The European Commission’s investigation started with surprise inspections in April 2005, prompted by an application for immunity lodged by Shell.

- On 1 October 2008, the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax: ENI (Italy), ExxonMobil (USA), Hansen & Rosenthal (Germany), Tudapetrol (Germany), MOL (Hungary), Repsol (Spain), Sasol (South Africa and Germany), RWE (Germany) and Total (France).

- As Shell was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice it received full immunity from fines.

Claimant law firm sues Shell and Exxon Mobil for involvement in Paraffin Wax cartel

London now European forum of choice for private cartel actions

International claimant law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has launched its second High Court cartel action in the space of a month. The firm has commenced proceedings against industry giants Shell and Exxon Mobil for their involvement in the paraffin wax price fixing cartel. The cartel took place throughout Europe for a period of 13 years between 1992 and 2005 and involved seven other major producers of paraffin wax. The European paraffin wax market is estimated to be worth almost €500 million.

Paraffin wax is used in a wide variety of products including candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates. Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of several large European candle manufacturers, and is in the process of being instructed by additional candle manufacturers as well as other substantial wax purchasers seeking to take action against the cartelists. The sales at issue for all claimants run into the hundreds of millions of euros.

In October 2008 the European Commission imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin wax) for participating in the cartel. Shell was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission. Exxon Mobil was fined almost €84m. The infringement decision by the Commission forms the basis of this action against Shell and Exxon Mobil, because in follow-on damages actions before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the anti-competitive behaviour took place and was illegal.

In order to allow the claimants to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an innovative agreement with specialist after-the-event insurer FirstAssist Legal Protection to provide them with protection against disbursements and adverse costs risks arising from the case.

This is the second High Court cartel action that Hausfeld has launched in London in the space of a month, following its claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company against Dunlop for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. In September 2008 Hausfeld lawyers commenced proceedings against British Airways for its involvement in the air cargo cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The paraffin wax cartel operated for 13 years throughout Europe. This action has been commenced to offer our clients and potentially hundreds of other businesses who have been affected a means to recoup their considerable losses. We are able to offer claimants an innovative funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs for cartel actions and maximises their chances of recovery, and we would therefore urge those affected by the paraffin wax cartel to come forward and contact us.

“This is the third cartel action that we have launched in London during the space of a year, which demonstrates that the UK is increasingly becoming the European forum of choice for the private enforcement of cartel abuse.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the paraffin wax cartel

- Paraffin waxes are used in a wide variety of products such as candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates, the wax coating on cheese, chemicals, tyres and car components as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. The market is estimated to be worth almost €500m. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes.

- Between 3 September 1992 and 28 April 2005, the producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax operated a cartel in which they, amongst other things, fixed prices for paraffin waxes.

- The European Commission’s investigation started with surprise inspections in April 2005, prompted by an application for immunity lodged by Shell.

- On 1 October 2008, the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax: ENI (Italy), ExxonMobil (USA), Hansen & Rosenthal (Germany), Tudapetrol (Germany), MOL (Hungary), Repsol (Spain), Sasol (South Africa and Germany), RWE (Germany) and Total (France).

- As Shell was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice it received full immunity from fines.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

Claimant law firm sues Shell and Exxon Mobil for involvement in Paraffin Wax cartel

London now European forum of choice for private cartel actions

International claimant law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has launched its second High Court cartel action in the space of a month. The firm has commenced proceedings against industry giants Shell and Exxon Mobil for their involvement in the paraffin wax price fixing cartel. The cartel took place throughout Europe for a period of 13 years between 1992 and 2005 and involved seven other major producers of paraffin wax. The European paraffin wax market is estimated to be worth almost €500 million.

Paraffin wax is used in a wide variety of products including candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates. Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of several large European candle manufacturers, and is in the process of being instructed by additional candle manufacturers as well as other substantial wax purchasers seeking to take action against the cartelists. The sales at issue for all claimants run into the hundreds of millions of euros.

In October 2008 the European Commission imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin wax) for participating in the cartel. Shell was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission. Exxon Mobil was fined almost €84m. The infringement decision by the Commission forms the basis of this action against Shell and Exxon Mobil, because in follow-on damages actions before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the anti-competitive behaviour took place and was illegal.

In order to allow the claimants to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an innovative agreement with specialist after-the-event insurer FirstAssist Legal Protection to provide them with protection against disbursements and adverse costs risks arising from the case.

This is the second High Court cartel action that Hausfeld has launched in London in the space of a month, following its claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company against Dunlop for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. In September 2008 Hausfeld lawyers commenced proceedings against British Airways for its involvement in the air cargo cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The paraffin wax cartel operated for 13 years throughout Europe. This action has been commenced to offer our clients and potentially hundreds of other businesses who have been affected a means to recoup their considerable losses. We are able to offer claimants an innovative funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs for cartel actions and maximises their chances of recovery, and we would therefore urge those affected by the paraffin wax cartel to come forward and contact us.

“This is the third cartel action that we have launched in London during the space of a year, which demonstrates that the UK is increasingly becoming the European forum of choice for the private enforcement of cartel abuse.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the paraffin wax cartel

- Paraffin waxes are used in a wide variety of products such as candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates, the wax coating on cheese, chemicals, tyres and car components as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. The market is estimated to be worth almost €500m. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes.

- Between 3 September 1992 and 28 April 2005, the producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax operated a cartel in which they, amongst other things, fixed prices for paraffin waxes.

- The European Commission’s investigation started with surprise inspections in April 2005, prompted by an application for immunity lodged by Shell.

- On 1 October 2008, the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax: ENI (Italy), ExxonMobil (USA), Hansen & Rosenthal (Germany), Tudapetrol (Germany), MOL (Hungary), Repsol (Spain), Sasol (South Africa and Germany), RWE (Germany) and Total (France).

- As Shell was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice it received full immunity from fines.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

In February 2008 Hausfeld & Co negotiated a £73.5m settlement with both airlines, providing compensation to UK and US consumers who were overcharged for long-haul airline tickets purchased between August 2004 and March 2006. Over 211,000 refunds have so far been processed, 170,000 of which originate from UK passengers. Payment has been authorised in 133,000 of these cases. These figures represent the actual number of claimants so far, from both individuals and businesses, many of whom may have claimed for multiple journeys.

Hausfeld & Co partner Anthony Maton comments:

“These figures represent the biggest ever take-up rate by UK consumers in a group action of this kind, and creates a precedent for the effective enforcement of consumer rights going forward. The fact that this historic settlement was actually achieved in the US courts demonstrates the urgent need for consumer-friendly reform of the UK’s group litigation framework.

“Whilst it is particularly pleasing to see so many cash-strapped UK travelers claiming back what is rightfully theirs in time for the start of the holiday season, these figures only represent the tip of the iceberg. We estimate that both airlines overcharged with respect to 5.6m journeys involving UK customers during the two-year cartel period.

“Passengers have until December 2012 to claim their refunds, and unless significant numbers of claims are made between now and then big companies like BA and Virgin will continue to believe that they can get away with ripping of their loyal customers.”

Claimants have until 31 December 2012 to claim refunds by filling out a simple claim form on www.airpassengerrefund.co.uk.

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/ Rohit Grover/Claire Wordley
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk

NOTES TO EDITORS

Background to the settlement

In February 2008 law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (now Hausfeld & Co in the UK) and its co-counsel in the United States, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, announced a groundbreaking $200m Settlement on behalf of businesses and individuals, representing between them almost 8 million US and UK passengers who purchased airline tickets from BA and Virgin between 11 August 2004 and 23 March 2006. The Settlement related to litigation brought in the US courts on behalf of passengers who were overcharged for tickets as a result of the airlines’ illegal agreement to fix the prices of fuel surcharges at an artificially high level.

Passengers have until 31 December 2012 to claim refunds, and periodic reminder notices will be sent to class members for whom contact information is available but who have not yet submitted a claim prior to this date.

BA and Virgin will also send reminder notices to eligible passengers in their frequent flyer statements.

About Hausfeld & Co LLP

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAA has illegally deprived former student-athletes from receiving any compensation for the use of their images and likenesses in numerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales and rentals, photograph sales, video games, “stock footage” clips sold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales, and rebroadcasts of “classic” games.

Class representative Ed O’Bannon was named the Most Outstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, in which he led his team to the national championship. Mr. O’Bannon’s image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs and photographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and its business partners, in stock footage available for sale to corporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensed by the NCAA. Mr. O’Bannon’s games also appear on television as part of the rebroadcast of “classic” games.

“College sports has become a multi-billion dollar business due to thousands of former student-athletes like myself. I’m participating in this case to stand up on behalf of all former players who have been treated unfairly,” said Mr. O’Bannon. “It is not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basic fairness.”

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin the NCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protect students in the future. Plaintiffs also seek damages for all those former Division I men’s basketball and football players whose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years.

“No one has a right to own or control another persons’ image or likeness for eternity without providing fair compensation,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “Former student athletes should have a voice in how their own images or likenesses – once they are no longer students -- are used throughout their lifetime.”

Hausfeld LLP has retained Sonny Vaccaro, recognized as a long-time advocate for amateur athlete rights, as an unpaid consultant. “I’ve spent many years advocating for the rights of amateur athletes,” said Mr. Vaccaro. “I’m very pleased that a court will now have the opportunity to fairly examine issues about former student-athletes’ rights in merchandise that uses their images.”

Hausfeld LLP is joined by Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Heins Mills & Olson, LLP, Zelle, Hofmann Voelbel & Mason, LLP and many other antitrust law firms, on the complaint.

About Hausfeld LLP
Mr. O’Bannon’s lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, is Chairman of Washington, DC-based Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, environmental law and securities fraud. Mr. Hausfeld is regarded as one of the world’s preeminent civil litigators and antitrust experts, and has recovered billions of dollars for his clients throughout the world in matters ranging from price fixing cartels to victims of forced and slave labor during and after World War II. Mr. Hausfeld also currently serves as counsel for numerous South African victims of the apartheid regime, alleging that the defendant multi-national corporations aided and abetted the commission of crimes against humanity by the security forces of the regime.

Mr. Hausfeld is joined in the complaint by antitrust attorneys Michael Lehmann, Megan Jones, Jon King, and Art Bailey, Jr., also of Hausfeld LLP.

In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Media Contact

Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
brian@lustigcommunications.com

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAA has illegally deprived former student-athletes from receiving any compensation for the use of their images and likenesses in numerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales and rentals, photograph sales, video games, “stock footage” clips sold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales, and rebroadcasts of “classic” games.

Class representative Ed O’Bannon was named the Most Outstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, in which he led his team to the national championship. Mr. O’Bannon’s image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs and photographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and its business partners, in stock footage available for sale to corporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensed by the NCAA. Mr. O’Bannon’s games also appear on television as part of the rebroadcast of “classic” games.

“College sports has become a multi-billion dollar business due to thousands of former student-athletes like myself. I’m participating in this case to stand up on behalf of all former players who have been treated unfairly,” said Mr. O’Bannon. “It is not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basic fairness.”

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin the NCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protect students in the future. Plaintiffs also seek damages for all those former Division I men’s basketball and football players whose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years.

“No one has a right to own or control another persons’ image or likeness for eternity without providing fair compensation,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “Former student athletes should have a voice in how their own images or likenesses – once they are no longer students -- are used throughout their lifetime.”

Hausfeld LLP has retained Sonny Vaccaro, recognized as a long-time advocate for amateur athlete rights, as an unpaid consultant. “I’ve spent many years advocating for the rights of amateur athletes,” said Mr. Vaccaro. “I’m very pleased that a court will now have the opportunity to fairly examine issues about former student-athletes’ rights in merchandise that uses their images.”

Hausfeld LLP is joined by Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Heins Mills & Olson, LLP, Zelle, Hofmann Voelbel & Mason, LLP and many other antitrust law firms, on the complaint.

About Hausfeld LLP
Mr. O’Bannon’s lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, is Chairman of Washington, DC-based Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, environmental law and securities fraud. Mr. Hausfeld is regarded as one of the world’s preeminent civil litigators and antitrust experts, and has recovered billions of dollars for his clients throughout the world in matters ranging from price fixing cartels to victims of forced and slave labor during and after World War II. Mr. Hausfeld also currently serves as counsel for numerous South African victims of the apartheid regime, alleging that the defendant multi-national corporations aided and abetted the commission of crimes against humanity by the security forces of the regime.

Mr. Hausfeld is joined in the complaint by antitrust attorneys Michael Lehmann, Megan Jones, Jon King, and Art Bailey, Jr., also of Hausfeld LLP.

In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Media Contact

Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
brian@lustigcommunications.com

A federal district court in the Northern District of California has appointed Hausfeld LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to be interim lead counsel in charge of consolidated class action cases raising antitrust or right of publicity claims.

Please click here if you are a former student athlete and are interested in receiving more information about this case.

Litigation could herald group action

Parker settlement and unique after-the-event insurance policy offers claimants valuable cooperation and ‘no-risk’ recourse to the courts

Leading global claimants law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has commenced a High Court action against Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited (Dunlop) for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. The cartel took place during the period from at least 1986 to 2007 and involved five other leading manufacturers of marine hose, all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of the rubber hose which is used to transfer oil between storage facilities and/or buoys.

Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company (Waha), the second biggest oil producer in Libya. The company made significant purchases of marine hose from Dunlop and the other cartelists during the cartel period. In criminal proceedings brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Dunlop executives have already admitted that the overcharge arising from the cartel amounted to at least 15%. Hausfeld also confirmed it has been and is in the process of being instructed by additional claimants seeking to take action against Dunlop.

Hausfeld’s global settlement in March 2009 with Parker ITR, one of the other marine hose cartelists, provides substantial cooperation benefits to claimants (see www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose or www.marinehoseclaims.com). That settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the OFT against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for this action against Dunlop. Furthermore, in order to allow Waha to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an agreement with after-the-event insurer FirstAssist to provide Waha with protection against disbursements and adverse cost risks arising from the case.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld, comments:

“This action follows our groundbreaking settlement agreement with Dunlop’s fellow cartelist Parker ITR, whereby any of Parker ITR’s customers are able to claim compensation in respect of their losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was bought, and provides for Parker ITR’s co-operation in bringing claims against the other cartelists.

“We are now commencing this action against Dunlop in order to offer Waha and other aggrieved purchasers a further means of recouping their losses arising from the cartel with the benefit of an innovative insurance and funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs and maximises claimants’ recovery.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover /Claire Wordley
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the marine hose cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.
• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of marine hose.
• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.
• The cartel is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice and criminal proceedings have been brought in the US against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel, which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals and guilty pleas by three cartelists (Dunlop, Manuli, and Trelleborg). Dunlop, Trelleborg, Bridgestone, Yokohama, and Parker ITR have each settled their US class action liability for a total of more than $21 million.
• In addition, the OFT brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who co-ordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the three individuals. There is a parallel European Commission investigation into the cartel which led to a decision fining the cartelists a total of €131 million in January 2009.

Background – the Parker ITR settlement

The settlement incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in US commerce, into an interest bearing escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in US commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss;

• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker ITR but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of extensive co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists; and

• Claims are being administered by an independent claims administrator, FRA, which has already sent a first wave of direct mail notice to claimants and published notice in international and trade publications.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

For further information on the settlement, go to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

Litigation could herald group action

Parker settlement and unique after-the-event insurance policy offers claimants valuable cooperation and ‘no-risk’ recourse to the courts

Leading global claimants law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has commenced a High Court action against Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited (Dunlop) for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. The cartel took place during the period from at least 1986 to 2007 and involved five other leading manufacturers of marine hose, all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of the rubber hose which is used to transfer oil between storage facilities and/or buoys.

Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company (Waha), the second biggest oil producer in Libya. The company made significant purchases of marine hose from Dunlop and the other cartelists during the cartel period. In criminal proceedings brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Dunlop executives have already admitted that the overcharge arising from the cartel amounted to at least 15%. Hausfeld also confirmed it has been and is in the process of being instructed by additional claimants seeking to take action against Dunlop.

Hausfeld’s global settlement in March 2009 with Parker ITR, one of the other marine hose cartelists, provides substantial cooperation benefits to claimants (see www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose or www.marinehoseclaims.com). That settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the OFT against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for this action against Dunlop. Furthermore, in order to allow Waha to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an agreement with after-the-event insurer FirstAssist to provide Waha with protection against disbursements and adverse cost risks arising from the case.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld, comments:

“This action follows our groundbreaking settlement agreement with Dunlop’s fellow cartelist Parker ITR, whereby any of Parker ITR’s customers are able to claim compensation in respect of their losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was bought, and provides for Parker ITR’s co-operation in bringing claims against the other cartelists.

“We are now commencing this action against Dunlop in order to offer Waha and other aggrieved purchasers a further means of recouping their losses arising from the cartel with the benefit of an innovative insurance and funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs and maximises claimants’ recovery.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover /Claire Wordley
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the marine hose cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.
• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of marine hose.
• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.
• The cartel is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice and criminal proceedings have been brought in the US against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel, which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals and guilty pleas by three cartelists (Dunlop, Manuli, and Trelleborg). Dunlop, Trelleborg, Bridgestone, Yokohama, and Parker ITR have each settled their US class action liability for a total of more than $21 million.
• In addition, the OFT brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who co-ordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the three individuals. There is a parallel European Commission investigation into the cartel which led to a decision fining the cartelists a total of €131 million in January 2009.

Background – the Parker ITR settlement

The settlement incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in US commerce, into an interest bearing escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in US commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss;

• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker ITR but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of extensive co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists; and

• Claims are being administered by an independent claims administrator, FRA, which has already sent a first wave of direct mail notice to claimants and published notice in international and trade publications.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

For further information on the settlement, go to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

“Brian is part of our truly unique team of lawyers at Hausfeld that have, throughout their careers, applied forward-thinking ideas and creative solutions to the most vexing global legal challenges,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “This honor reflects Brian’s commitment to the firm’s success and, most importantly, to delivering unprecedented results for our clients.”

Legal Times, a product of The National Law Journal, cited Ratner’s key role in helping Hausfeld “build a global presence” for the firm and secure multiple multimillion-dollar victories for victims of anti-competitive conduct, as well as his work representing plaintiffs impacted by a global vitamins cartel and, more recently, serving as one of the lead negotiators for a groundbreaking settlement related to the marine hose cartel (see www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose).

The “40 Under 40” will be honored at the annual Legal Times awards gala in October.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

“Brian is part of our truly unique team of lawyers at Hausfeld that have, throughout their careers, applied forward-thinking ideas and creative solutions to the most vexing global legal challenges,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “This honor reflects Brian’s commitment to the firm’s success and, most importantly, to delivering unprecedented results for our clients.”

Legal Times, a product of The National Law Journal, cited Ratner’s key role in helping Hausfeld “build a global presence” for the firm and secure multiple multimillion-dollar victories for victims of anti-competitive conduct, as well as his work representing plaintiffs impacted by a global vitamins cartel and, more recently, serving as one of the lead negotiators for a groundbreaking settlement related to the marine hose cartel (see www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose).

The “40 Under 40” will be honored at the annual Legal Times awards gala in October.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

It has been estimated that 550 million pounds of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States from 2004 to 2006 to address a domestic shortage caused by a peaking housing boom, as well as hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In addition to creating noxious, “rotten egg-like” odors, gases from the defective drywall cause the accelerated corrosion of air conditioner and refrigerator coils, kitchen appliances and utensils, electrical wiring, electronic or computer devices, and other metal surfaces and household items. Long-term exposure to low-levels of sulfides has also been associated with several health conditions including fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, dizziness, and ear, nose and throat irritation.

About the Virginia and North Carolina Complaints
The Virginia and North Carolina statewide class action complaints target a Chinese drywall manufacturer (Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.), as well as a U.S. supplier (Venture Supply, Inc.) and drywall installation contractor (The Porter-Blaine Corp.). The group filed the Germano action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009, and the Hinkley action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 15, 2009.

Both complaints seek relief from Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese drywall manufacturer whose parent company is a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese government. The Germano clients through their Virginia counsel, Richard Serpe, of Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P.C., and the Hinkley clients through their North Carolina counsel, Michael Malone, of Hendren & Malone, PLLC, have suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of Florida as the venue best suited to handle the related litigation given the important sources of discovery and other cases pending there.

Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP stated: “It is clear now that the problems with defective Chinese drywall are not limited to Florida and Louisiana, but are national in scope. Our clients in Virginia and North Carolina are being impacted by the same problems with defective drywall that other homeowners across the country are experiencing. Similarly, the sulfur leaching issues are not limited to drywall that was manufactured in China. We are finding more and more homes containing drywall made by U.S. manufacturers showing the same corroded metal surfaces.”

Potential Issues with U.S.-Made Drywall
The Vickers counsel are also now studying problems reported with drywall manufactured in the United States. Presently under investigation are fairly new homes containing U.S.-made drywall that are producing effects similar to homes containing defective Chinese drywall; and the attorneys are carrying on extensive testing of both the U.S. drywall in these homes, as well as the corroded and blackened electrical and HVAC components.

Progress in Vickers Florida Class Action
The Vickers counsel have also made significant progress in serving their legal complaints on the Taiwanese and German defendants in the Vickers class action, filed in the Southern District of Florida. On May 13, 2009, Judge Moore of the Southern District of Florida issued an Order requesting the Judicial Authority of Taiwan to serve the Vickers complaint on Rothschilt International Limited, a Taiwanese entity, which was the primary distributor for Chinese drywall manufactured by Knauf, a product associated with widespread problems in Florida. Vickers counsel also obtained an Order from the Southern District of Florida authorizing Service of Process on other international defendants, such as Kanuf, under the Hague Convention. Vickers’ approved International Process Server, APS International Limited, has reported that the Vickers Complaint and Summons have been received by the Ministry of Justice of the Peoples’ Republic of China, thus accomplishing, an intermediate step in perfecting service on the Taiwanese defendant.

Copies of the drywall complaints will be available at www.chinesedrywallclaims.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

Media Contact
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
 

It has been estimated that 550 million pounds of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States from 2004 to 2006 to address a domestic shortage caused by a peaking housing boom, as well as hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. In addition to creating noxious, “rotten egg-like” odors, gases from the defective drywall cause the accelerated corrosion of air conditioner and refrigerator coils, kitchen appliances and utensils, electrical wiring, electronic or computer devices, and other metal surfaces and household items. Long-term exposure to low-levels of sulfides has also been associated with several health conditions including fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, dizziness, and ear, nose and throat irritation.

About the Virginia and North Carolina Complaints
The Virginia and North Carolina statewide class action complaints target a Chinese drywall manufacturer (Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.), as well as a U.S. supplier (Venture Supply, Inc.) and drywall installation contractor (The Porter-Blaine Corp.). The group filed the Germano action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009, and the Hinkley action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 15, 2009.

Both complaints seek relief from Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese drywall manufacturer whose parent company is a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese government. The Germano clients through their Virginia counsel, Richard Serpe, of Law Offices of Richard J. Serpe, P.C., and the Hinkley clients through their North Carolina counsel, Michael Malone, of Hendren & Malone, PLLC, have suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the cases be transferred to the Southern District of Florida as the venue best suited to handle the related litigation given the important sources of discovery and other cases pending there.

Richard Lewis of Hausfeld LLP stated: “It is clear now that the problems with defective Chinese drywall are not limited to Florida and Louisiana, but are national in scope. Our clients in Virginia and North Carolina are being impacted by the same problems with defective drywall that other homeowners across the country are experiencing. Similarly, the sulfur leaching issues are not limited to drywall that was manufactured in China. We are finding more and more homes containing drywall made by U.S. manufacturers showing the same corroded metal surfaces.”

Potential Issues with U.S.-Made Drywall
The Vickers counsel are also now studying problems reported with drywall manufactured in the United States. Presently under investigation are fairly new homes containing U.S.-made drywall that are producing effects similar to homes containing defective Chinese drywall; and the attorneys are carrying on extensive testing of both the U.S. drywall in these homes, as well as the corroded and blackened electrical and HVAC components.

Progress in Vickers Florida Class Action
The Vickers counsel have also made significant progress in serving their legal complaints on the Taiwanese and German defendants in the Vickers class action, filed in the Southern District of Florida. On May 13, 2009, Judge Moore of the Southern District of Florida issued an Order requesting the Judicial Authority of Taiwan to serve the Vickers complaint on Rothschilt International Limited, a Taiwanese entity, which was the primary distributor for Chinese drywall manufactured by Knauf, a product associated with widespread problems in Florida. Vickers counsel also obtained an Order from the Southern District of Florida authorizing Service of Process on other international defendants, such as Kanuf, under the Hague Convention. Vickers’ approved International Process Server, APS International Limited, has reported that the Vickers Complaint and Summons have been received by the Ministry of Justice of the Peoples’ Republic of China, thus accomplishing, an intermediate step in perfecting service on the Taiwanese defendant.

Copies of the drywall complaints will be available at www.chinesedrywallclaims.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

Media Contact
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
 

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. the firm has operations in Washington, D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

The complaint charges that defendants Congressional Youth Leadership Council (CYLC) and Envision EMI, LLC solicited students all over the country to attend “educational inaugural conferences” and promised exclusive access and tickets to witness the Presidential Inauguration on the Mall, view the Presidential Inaugural Parade, attend an official Black Tie Gala Inaugural Ball, and visit with celebrities, politicians, and White House staff. Despite paying significant “tuition costs,” as well as travel and related expenses in reliance on these representations, the plaintiffs allege that the promised access to these events went unfulfilled. Once they were in Washington, DC, the defendants told students that they had no tickets or areas for viewing the inauguration or parade. Instead of the promised official inaugural ball, the students were taken to a “glorified prom.” Moreover, many of the promised speakers never appeared. Although the students spent several thousand dollars to attend the conference, all they got were a few meals and shared hotel rooms worth, at most, a couple of hundred dollars.

The complaint further alleges that even though Envision and CYLC advertised the “exclusive” and “limited” nature of the programs, they enrolled more than 15,000 students. Prior inaugural conferences sponsored by these groups had only 500-800 attendees. While Envision and CYLC eventually set aside $1 million to refund angry parents and students, that sum would provide approximately $65 per attendee.

James Pizzirusso, a partner with Hausfeld LLP, stated: “Our clients allege that CYLC and Envision were ill-prepared to deal with the number of students they accepted and the logistics of providing access to viewing the inauguration and parade or attending an inaugural ball. It was well-known months before the inauguration that very few tickets would be issued for these events. Instead of advising the students of these issues and allowing people to cancel or obtain refunds, the defendants retained these students’ payments and continued their misrepresentations.”

Bernard DiMuro of DiMuroGinsberg PC, stated: “If the companies sponsoring these events had disclosed the true nature of these ‘educational conferences,’ no one would have paid $3,000 to attend. These kids took odd jobs and raised funds from family, friends and strangers in order to participate in the defendants' inaugural youth conference to eyewitness a truly historical event. Instead all they saw was the inside of a bus or were dropped off near the Washington Monument to fend for themselves.”

Copies of the complaint will be available at www.hausfeldllp.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

DimuroGinsberg PC
DiMuroGinsberg is a boutique litigation firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. The firm's practice focuses primarily on general and complex civil litigation in the areas of corporate & commercial law, business torts, criminal law, employment & labor law, and professional liability & ethics. For additional information about DiMuroGinsberg PC and its services, please visit http://www.dimuro.com.
 

The complaint charges that defendants Congressional Youth Leadership Council (CYLC) and Envision EMI, LLC solicited students all over the country to attend “educational inaugural conferences” and promised exclusive access and tickets to witness the Presidential Inauguration on the Mall, view the Presidential Inaugural Parade, attend an official Black Tie Gala Inaugural Ball, and visit with celebrities, politicians, and White House staff. Despite paying significant “tuition costs,” as well as travel and related expenses in reliance on these representations, the plaintiffs allege that the promised access to these events went unfulfilled. Once they were in Washington, DC, the defendants told students that they had no tickets or areas for viewing the inauguration or parade. Instead of the promised official inaugural ball, the students were taken to a “glorified prom.” Moreover, many of the promised speakers never appeared. Although the students spent several thousand dollars to attend the conference, all they got were a few meals and shared hotel rooms worth, at most, a couple of hundred dollars.

The complaint further alleges that even though Envision and CYLC advertised the “exclusive” and “limited” nature of the programs, they enrolled more than 15,000 students. Prior inaugural conferences sponsored by these groups had only 500-800 attendees. While Envision and CYLC eventually set aside $1 million to refund angry parents and students, that sum would provide approximately $65 per attendee.

James Pizzirusso, a partner with Hausfeld LLP, stated: “Our clients allege that CYLC and Envision were ill-prepared to deal with the number of students they accepted and the logistics of providing access to viewing the inauguration and parade or attending an inaugural ball. It was well-known months before the inauguration that very few tickets would be issued for these events. Instead of advising the students of these issues and allowing people to cancel or obtain refunds, the defendants retained these students’ payments and continued their misrepresentations.”

Bernard DiMuro of DiMuroGinsberg PC, stated: “If the companies sponsoring these events had disclosed the true nature of these ‘educational conferences,’ no one would have paid $3,000 to attend. These kids took odd jobs and raised funds from family, friends and strangers in order to participate in the defendants' inaugural youth conference to eyewitness a truly historical event. Instead all they saw was the inside of a bus or were dropped off near the Washington Monument to fend for themselves.”

Copies of the complaint will be available at www.hausfeldllp.com.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

DimuroGinsberg PC
DiMuroGinsberg is a boutique litigation firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. The firm's practice focuses primarily on general and complex civil litigation in the areas of corporate & commercial law, business torts, criminal law, employment & labor law, and professional liability & ethics. For additional information about DiMuroGinsberg PC and its services, please visit http://www.dimuro.com.
 

Dash Radosti, a student at Rachel Carson Middle School in Herndon, and Joshua Rottman, a college student in California, filed the suit in the District's federal court. Their attorneys are seeking class-action status for the 15,000 students who participated in the Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference, which was run by Envision EMI.

A spokesperson at Envision could not be reached for comment. Phones at the company went unanswered. The suit alleges that students paid up to $2,630 in tuition and lodging to attend the conference.

The company promised students they could attend the inauguration, educational seminars and a "Black Tie Gala Inaugural Ball," the suit alleges.

But once in Washington, the students learned they did not have inauguration tickets and would have to fend for themselves.

Rottman, 21, said in an interview that he watched the event on his hotel television.

Envision didn't deliver on other promises, the students' attorneys allege.

The company told students they would get to hear bicyclist Lance Armstrong speak, but he never showed up, said James J. Pizzirusso, one of the students' attorneys.

The black-tie galas were held in school gymnasiums or at a conference center. They did not require formal wear and were not affiliated with the inauguration, Pizzirusso said.

Students also couldn't get into packed rooms to hear promised speakers, Pizzirusso said.

According to press reports, the company reserved $1 million to pay restitution to the students. But Pizzirusso said that each student would only get to collect about $65 on average.

"That doesn't even pay for the tux rental," he said.

Hausfeld LLP, co-counsel to the plaintiffs in the litigation that alleged the two airlines had illegally schemed to fix artificially high fuel surcharge prices, said Wednesday a settlement had been reached with the three objectors, who had been waging a battle in U.S. courts to get the U.K. portion of the multimillion-dollar 2008 settlement canceled.

In February 2008, British Airways PLC and Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. agreed to settle claims brought by passengers who sued the airlines for fixing fuel prices on international flights. The airlines agreed to pay $59 million to American passengers and £73.5 million to British passengers who bought long-haul tickets from either BA or Virgin between Aug. 11, 2004, and March 23, 2006.

The deal resolved an antitrust class action filed against the carriers in a U.S. federal court, and marked the first time an action has been settled collectively under both U.S. and U.K. law, plaintiffs' lawyers said.

Hausfeld LLP said Wednesday it was able to reach a settlement with the three UK citizens, whose objections had stalled payments to U.K. victims of the fuel surcharge scheme.

Last fall, Duncan Vere-Hopegood, Dominic Hagger and Tracy Hagger, all members of the U.K. settlement class, raised objections to the U.K. portion of the settlement reached with BA and Virgin, arguing that U.S. courts should not have assumed jurisdiction over U.K. claims.

In an October court filing, the objectors argued that antitrust claims involving U.K. victims properly belonged in U.K. courts, and said the settlement could provide future encouragement for forum shopping, noting that U.S. antitrust laws are typically more generous to plaintiffs than other legal systems.

“Indeed it opens the Pandora's box of antitrust lawsuits throughout the world being resolved by U.S. courts,” the objectors argued. “This case is not just an exceptional case, it is unprecedented. Compelling circumstances clearly exist to decline jurisdiction.”

But Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California disagreed, saying in an October order that the U.K. settlement class claims and the U.S. settlement class claims stemmed from the same controversy, allowing the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

“If defendants had objected to jurisdiction, or if the settlement was a traditional opt-out settlement rather than an opt-in, or if there was already a similar case pending in the United Kingdom, the court agrees that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction might be unwarranted. In the unique circumstances of this case, however, the court finds that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate,” the court said. The objectors appealed that decision in November.

Michael D. Hausfeld, chairman of Hausfeld LLP, confirmed Wednesday that the objectors have now dropped their appeal, but declined to comment on the terms of the agreement made with the three objectors. An attorney for the objectors could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

An estimated 5.6 million passengers stand to benefit under the U.K. portion of the settlement, and refunds will be paid to U.K. claimants soon. Passengers have until December 2012 to claim their refunds.

“Since we announced this settlement, over 100,000 individuals and businesses have applied for refunds, which were due to be processed in the last quarter of 2008,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “While it was disappointing that this unprecedented objection was raised in the first place, we are pleased a settlement has now been reached with the objectors – meaning that refunds will now be processed promptly.”

Each ticket purchaser can recover one-third of the fuel levy. BA raised its fuel surcharge price $4 a flight in May 2004 and later raised it numerous times to a level of more than $125 for international flights.

Virgin introduced a fuel surcharge a week after BA. The plaintiffs alleged that the two airlines' surcharges rose in a lockstep pattern, both repeatedly rising within days of each other.

BA revealed in June 2007 that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.K. Office of Fair Trading were looking into alleged cartel activity related to the pricing of passenger air transportation, including fuel surcharges.

A deluge of class actions followed. More than 90 cases were consolidated into the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs are represented in this matter by Hausfeld LLP and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy.

British Airways is represented in this matter by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP and Wright Robinson Osthimer & Tatum. Virgin is represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Cairncross & Hempelmann PS and Richards McGettigan Reilly & West PC.

The case is In Re: International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, case number M:06-cv-01793, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Today, Hausfeld, which represents two flower importers Emerald Supplies Ltd and Southern Glass House Produce Ltd, is requesting leave to appeal from Justice Morritt, the Vice-Chancellor of the High Court, after he ruled on 8 April that the representative aspect of the damages action should be struck out.

Morritt found that the members of the claim had not been identified sufficiently: a point Hausfeld will dispute. The claimants believe that there only needs to be a definition for the group, and whether anybody falls within that definition is a matter for trial.

Hausfeld was seeking to add around 180 extra claimants to the action but BA had tried to block this in a hearing at the court on 2 April, arguing, inter alia, that there were potential conflicts of interest between the claimants, since any damage suffered would be 'passed on' to differing degrees depending on their position in the distribution chain. The court agreed with this line of reasoning.

This will also be challenged by the claimants, who believe that any conflict of interest between the members of the class is unknown since the law is undecided. Furthermore, this should be dealt with by the court at trial.

Justice Morritt, on the other hand, stated in his judgment that claimants must be identified at the outset and the law was not aimed at requiring further litigation to determine a class.

If the judge refuses the claimants leave to appeal – a scenario many say is likely – then Hausfeld will have another 21 days to go to the Court of Appeal in pursuit of permission.

Each of the 180 claims will have to be lodged separately if the High Court’s ruling from 8 April stands.
 

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin rejected assertions by several countries that the lawsuits should not proceed because that might harm relations between the United States and South Africa.

The written decision was related to lawsuits filed about seven years ago on behalf of victims of apartheid. The lawsuits once targeted many more U.S. corporations, including oil companies and banking institutions, but the number of defendants was decreased after the lawsuits were tossed out by one judge and an appeals court that reinstated them said allegations needed more specifics.

After Scheindlin dismissed several more companies as defendants Wednesday, the plaintiffs were left to press their claims against IBM Corp., German automaker Daimler AG, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Rheinmetall Group AG, the Swiss parent of an armaments maker.

The plaintiffs, at least thousands of people seeking unspecified damages, allege the automakers supplied military vehicles that let securities forces suppress black South Africans. IBM is accused of providing equipment used to track dissidents.

The judge noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had referenced the apartheid cases in the footnote of an earlier decision when it wrote "federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch's view of the case's impact on foreign policy" when the U.S. and a foreign government agree litigation could harm the domestic policies of a foreign nation.

But she said the footnote was only meant as guidance and the executive branch was not "owed deference on every topic."

The U.S. government had submitted a statement saying the lawsuits could become "an irritant in U.S.-South African relations" because they might interfere with South Africa's sovereign right to decide apartheid issues and might discourage investment in South Africa.

South African officials had said the efforts to compensate victims should be pursued within South Africa's political and legal processes.

Defense lawyers have said corporations shouldn't be penalized because they were encouraged to do business in South Africa during apartheid. Lawyers for the companies didn't immediately return telephone messages Wednesday.

Plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Hausfeld praised the ruling, saying it will allow his clients to begin obtaining evidence from the companies that will show what they did in relation to South Africa during apartheid.

"It's great," he said. "There's a treasure of documentation that would be disclosed for the first time ever."

Hausfeld said that besides South Africa and the United States, countries including Germany, Switzerland and England had opposed letting the litigation proceed.

He said it was significant that the judge concluded that opposition by governments was not enough to halt lawsuits brought for human rights reasons. Ruling otherwise, he said, "would have given governments a veto power over the bringing of legal claims."

Daimler is based in Stuttgart, Germany, while Ford is headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., and General Motors is based in Detroit. IBM is based in Armonk, N.Y.

Rheinmetall Group is a holding company headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany. It is the parent company of Oerlikon Contraves AG, an armaments maker headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland.

Since summer 2007, roughly 30 companies have joined a class action against the country’s four largest freight lines: Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Southern Norfolk, and CSX. They allege that in 2003, the rail companies entered into a price-fixing scheme regarding fuel surcharges, the rate the rail companies charged customers to cover the cost of diesel fuel.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Paul Friedman is presiding over the class action. It has taken almost two full years for the case just to reach discovery, and Friedman is still deciding how that process will proceed. But with a docket chock-full of marquee firms on both sides, it has the potential to cost the industry serious money.

The rail lines—all Fortune 500 companies—have geared up a list of top D.C. firms for their defense, including Mayer Brown and Steptoe & Johnson for Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Crowell & Moring for CSX; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Kaye Scholer for Norfolk Southern; and Howrey for Union Pacific.

While the issues might seem arcane, the money involved in any award could be huge. According to Supply Chain Digest Research, a trade publication, Union Pacific alone may have overcharged customers by $1.16 billion, with the other three following close behind. Michael Hausfeld, whose firm, Hausfeld LLP, is co-lead counsel with Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, says he believes a judgment in his clients’ favor could cost the rail lines hundreds of millions of dollars.

In the last several years, transportation companies have weathered a storm of antitrust litigation, with government prosecutors and private plaintiffs alike targeting airlines, trucking companies, and rail operators over their pricing practices. Hausfeld himself has been involved in class actions against air carriers and trucking companies. He says the rail case fits into a larger controversy over the way the transportation industry has operated over the past decade.

“You’ve got to look at the transportation industry generally,” he says. “From trucking to airlines to railroads. Each saw increasing fuel costs that they expensed as a fuel surcharge” as a way to inflate their profits. He says his firm is looking into the possibility of more such suits in the future.

Several defense lawyers declined to comment for this story or did not return phone calls. Those who did speak for the article generally played down the significance of the case. Right now, says Howrey partner Alan Wiseman, plaintiffs are just overeager to sue.

“There’s a herd mentality amongst the plaintiffs’ antitrust lawyers,” Wiseman says. “If one case is filed, there are 50 antitrust lawyers who will follow.”

He says Howrey has only devoted a “relatively small” number of lawyers to the case.
 

For more information, please contact Michael P. Lehmann.

If you believe your property has been impacted as a result of toxic contamination, please contact us.

If you have been diagnosed with breast cancer after you started taking HRT, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

The primary cause of lead poisoning in children today is through exposure to lead chips and dust from old residential paint put on homes from the 1920s through the 1950s.  

Hausfeld LLP lawyers have represented children exposed to lead, communities located close to lead smelters and municipalities seeking to abate lead paint hazards.  

If you would like to discuss your legal rights with regard to lead exposure, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

In 2007, a jury found that the lead paint on homes in Milwaukee was a public nuisance but found that the manufacturers were not responsible.  The case is currently on appeal.

If you have been diagnosed with breast cancer after you started taking HRT, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

The litigation is designed to establish the workers' rights to compensation under the South African Constitution and various statutory compensation schemes, as well as to establish a medical monitoring program to benefit the workers.  It has been estimated that one in four South African gold miners suffer from this disabling disease.

The first "test case" as dismissed in 2008 and is presently on appeal.

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorney working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis.

Several homes were destroyed and scores of properties were impacted.  According to a February 2008 inspection report, the TVA reportedly knew about leaks at the Kingston facility for more than two decades and opted not to pay for long-term solutions to the problems.  Numerous concerns have been raised about the impact of the contamination on air quality and water supplies.  Furthermore, residents have expressed concerns about property values.  

Hausfeld LLP represents riparian landowners whose properties were impacted by the spill.

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

Farmers have been losing crops and revenue for numerous years due to the presence of hydrocarbons in the irrigated water and a lack of adequate water supplies as a result of shutting down several wells contaminated by oil. 

Hausfeld LLP represents farmers and landowners in the region who have been impacted by the spills.

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

In 1999, an initial lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York seeking to compel Union Carbide to clean up the plant site and to provide medical monitoring to the surrounding communities and pay damages to those who have been injured by the extensive pollution.  Although this lawsuit was ultimately dismissed because the Court found that the named plaintiffs lacked standing (due to a lack of beneficial interest in the surrounding land), another case, filed in 2004, is now pending.  

In the 2004 action, the District Court granted summary judgement in favor of Union Carbide in 2006, but in 2008 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.  The case has now returned to the District Court for further proceedings and the plaintiffs will be seeking discovery in accordance with the Second Circuit's opinion.

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or Reena Armillay Gambhir. 

If you have experienced a problem with a product in your home and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

If you have received a pain pump and have questions about a potential claim, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

On September 30, 2004, Merck announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing Vioxx from the market worldwide, due to increased risks of cardiovascular problems (including heart attacks and strokes) in users of the drug after these injuring were reported in a three-year clinical study of the drug.  

If you have taken Vioxx and have questions about a potential claim, please the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

If you have been diagnosed with breast cancer after you started taking HRT, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Richard S. Lewis or James J. Pizzirusso. 

* During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of marine hose.

* Alongside Parker ITR s.r.l., the five other cartelists are: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd. This cartel is being investigated in the US by the United States Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals and guilty pleas by two cartelists (Dunlop and Manuli). [www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/December/08-at-1055.html]

* In In re: Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888 (S.D. Fla.), the Court certified a class consisting of dozens of U.S. purchasers in an order on July 31, 2009 (Click Here to see the order). In that same order, the court also gave preliminary approval to $22 million in settlements covering all of the cartelists except Manuli, as well as settlements with several of the Defendant companies’ individual employees.

* In addition, the UK Office of Fair Trading brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who co-ordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the three individuals. [www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/72-08] Additionally the European Commission recently fined the marine hose cartel a total of € 131 million for infringements of the EU competition rules. [europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do]

Parker Global Settlement

Hausfeld LLP and its London arm Hausfeld & Co. LLP recently announced a groundbreaking global settlement agreement with Parker ITR regarding its involvement in the marine hose cartel. The settlement allows any purchaser of marine hose from Parker anywhere in the world, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, to claim compensation in respect of losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was purchased from.

This settlement agreement represents the first private resolution of a company’s global cartel liability without any arbitration, mediation or litigation – creating opportunities never before possible for dispute resolution and providing a new model for global cartel settlements going forward.

Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement, which incorporates the following elements:

* Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 31 January 2002 to 2 May 2007 (the “Settlement Period”), other than marine hose that was sold in US commerce, into an interest bearing escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

* In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

* An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

* The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the Settlement Period, other than direct purchasers in US commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss;

* Lawyers, notice and administration fees and costs will be paid by Parker ITR on top of the settlement funds and not out of those settlement funds. Thus, no claimant’s approved recovery from this settlement will be reduced for fees or costs;

* Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to claim against the Parker ITR settlement but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of extensive co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists; and

* Claims will be administered by an independent claims administrator, FRA.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

* Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

* Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

Parker ITR’s cooperation under the settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for subsequent legal proceedings against Parker ITR’s co-conspirators in Europe. If you are a victim of the cartel, please contact Hausfeld & Co LLP (contact details below) to discuss your legal options in Europe.

This is not a United States opt-out style class action settlement. It is a private opt-in settlement and there is no court approval process. Claimants must sign on to the settlement and release their claims against Parker ITR in order to receive its benefits. Settlement will be way of private contractual agreement between Parker ITR and claimants, on standard terms offered by Parker ITR. All claimants who participate in the settlement may remain anonymous.

If any claimant has direct purchases of marine hose in US commerce from Parker ITR or any other cartelist, they will be able to seek a recovery under settlements reached with US class counsel. US class counsel recently sought preliminary approval of these settlements in the US before a Federal Judge in In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888 (S.D. Fla.).

For further information on the settlement and how purchasers can sign up to the settlement, please refer to www.marinehoseclaims.com or contact:

Michael Hausfeld or Brian Ratner in Washington, DC at
Telephone: 202.540.7200
Fax: 202.540.7201

For further information on Hausfeld’s London action against Dunlop, please contact:

Anthony Maton in London at:
Telephone: (00 44) 20 3170 7725
Fax: (00 44) 20 3170 7729

For more information, please contact Megan E. Jones.

Hausfeld LLP took a major role in a successful appeal of the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, leading to an important decision by the Second Circuit finding that aiding and abetting claims are cognizable under the Alien Tort Statute.

See Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007).

For more information, please contact Steig D. Olson.
 

This settlement agreement represents the first private resolution of a company’s global cartel liability without any arbitration, mediation or litigation – creating opportunities never before possible for dispute resolution and providing a new model for global cartel settlements going forward. Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement.

The marine hose cartel occurred between 1986-2007 and, in addition to Parker ITR, involved five other leading manufacturers (Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.), all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose – the flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.

“The Parker settlement is truly revolutionary in the context of global dispute resolution, one that succeeded despite many believing such a private settlement structure could never be achieved outside the United States,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “This settlement demonstrates how powerful the results can be when forward thinking corporations like Parker ITR remain open-minded to creative solutions to address legal issues; and in this case a fair resolution was reached benefiting all parties concerned – most importantly the claimants.”

This cartel is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain individuals involved in the cartel, leading to guilty pleas and prison sentences. The Marine Hose settlement allows any purchaser of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, to claim compensation in respect of losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was purchased from geographically.

“The Parker ITR settlement represents a huge leap forward for the settlement of private cartel claims, and will be the model for the settlement of many global disputes going forward. For the first time all victims of a cartel will be able to come forward and claim financial compensation and/or co-operation without the need for intervention of a court process. This is a commercial business resolution for a commercial business dispute,” adds Anthony Maton, Partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP – the firm’s London office.

For further information on the settlement and how purchasers can sign up to the settlement, please refer to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose/ or contact:

Michael Hausfeld or Brian Ratner in Washington, DC at
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
bratner@hausfeldllp.com
Telephone: 202.540.7200
Fax: 202.540.7201

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing conflict-free litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Background – Marine Hose Cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.

• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst six of the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose.

• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.

• This cartel is being investigated in the US by the United States Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals; as well as guilty pleas by two cartelists (Dunlop and Manuli).

• All of the cartelists except Manuli have collectively settled their US class action liability for more than $21 million.

• The UK Office of Fair Trading brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who coordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the individuals. Additionally the European Commission recently fined the marine hose cartel a total of € 131 million for infringements of the EU competition rules.

Background – Parker ITR Settlement

Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement, which incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in U.S. commerce, into an escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in U.S. commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss; and

• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

Parker ITR’s cooperation under the settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for subsequent legal proceedings against Parker ITR’s co-conspirators in Europe.

Media Contact:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203
 

This settlement agreement represents the first private resolution of a company’s global cartel liability without any arbitration, mediation or litigation – creating opportunities never before possible for dispute resolution and providing a new model for global cartel settlements going forward. Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement.

The marine hose cartel occurred between 1986-2007 and, in addition to Parker ITR, involved five other leading manufacturers (Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.), all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose – the flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.

“The Parker settlement is truly revolutionary in the context of global dispute resolution, one that succeeded despite many believing such a private settlement structure could never be achieved outside the United States,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “This settlement demonstrates how powerful the results can be when forward thinking corporations like Parker ITR remain open-minded to creative solutions to address legal issues; and in this case a fair resolution was reached benefiting all parties concerned – most importantly the claimants.”

This cartel is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain individuals involved in the cartel, leading to guilty pleas and prison sentences. The Marine Hose settlement allows any purchaser of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, to claim compensation in respect of losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was purchased from geographically.

“The Parker ITR settlement represents a huge leap forward for the settlement of private cartel claims, and will be the model for the settlement of many global disputes going forward. For the first time all victims of a cartel will be able to come forward and claim financial compensation and/or co-operation without the need for intervention of a court process. This is a commercial business resolution for a commercial business dispute,” adds Anthony Maton, Partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP – the firm’s London office.

For further information on the settlement and how purchasers can sign up to the settlement, please refer to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose/ or contact:

Michael Hausfeld or Brian Ratner in Washington, DC at
Telephone: 202.540.7200
Fax: 202.540.7201

Or

Anthony Maton, Vincent Smith or Scott Campbell with Hausfeld & Co LLP in London at
Telephone (Switchboard): 011 44 0203 170 7725
Fax: 011 44 0203 170 7729

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing conflict-free litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Background – Marine Hose Cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.
• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst six of the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose.
• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.
• This cartel is being investigated in the US by the United States Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals; as well as guilty pleas by two cartelists (Dunlop and Manuli).
• All of the cartelists except Manuli have collectively settled their US class action liability for more than $21 million.
• The UK Office of Fair Trading brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who coordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the individuals. Additionally the European Commission recently fined the marine hose cartel a total of € 131 million for infringements of the EU competition rules.

Background – Parker ITR Settlement

Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement, which incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in U.S. commerce, into an escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);
• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;
• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;
• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in U.S. commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss; and
• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and
• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

Parker ITR’s cooperation under the settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for subsequent legal proceedings against Parker ITR’s co-conspirators in Europe.

Media Contact:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203

Michael opened his 1700 K Street doors in early January, bringing 17 lawyers with him and adding three new hires since. The business model: to build on his successes in anti-trust (including a $1 billion settlement in a vitamin price-fixing case) and human rights ($176 million settlement from Texaco for race discrimination), but with an eye to correcting "mass wrongs" outside U.S. borders. Hausfeld, which just opened a small London office, will soon announce a joint venture with a 650-lawyer Chinese firm, has an affiliated firm in South Africa, and is looking next to Latin America and India.

So what will these cases look like? In one example, Hausfeld is taking on the allegedly "cartelized" Chinese air cargo industry with actions on behalf of Chinese shippers pending in the E.D.N.Y. (for injury in the U.S.) and London's High Court (for injury elsewhere). Other matters in the hopper: representing citizens of Bhopal, India, asking Union Carbide to clean up the effects of a chemical explosion that killed 8,000 in 1984, and an International Court of Justice case to redress injury from global warming (Michael couldn't talk specifics but the ICJ hears cases by nations against other nations).

With beleaguered companies looking to find money wherever they can, Michael and his partners are getting contacted by multinationals to do analyze whether the raw materials they purchase are subject to price-fixing agreements. It's called "cartel analysis," and it's one way that Hausfeld, traditionally a corporate foe, could prove profitable for in-house legal departments.

View the entire article on Bisnow.com.

The suit represents China's growing economic clout in global markets and has raised important new issues concerning the assertion of a government’s role in the pricing and output decisions of the Chinese manufacturing defendants.

On November 6, 2008, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Michael D. Hausfeld, Brian A. Ratner, Brent W. Landau or Melinda R. Coolidge.

Internet links:
Antitrust Suit Proceeds Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers                                                               http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425997056

Antitrust Case Against Chinese Manufacturers of Vitamin C Moves Forward                              http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1196279893783

 

In a later trial concerning four of the Class Plaintiffs’ remaining unsettled Vitamin B4 (choline chloride) claims, a federal jury in Washington unanimously found Japan’s second largest trading company, Mitsui & Co., Ltd., its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., DuCoa, LP, a choline chloride manufacturer based in Highland, Illinois, and DuCoa’s general partner, DCV, Inc., liable for participating in the cartel and ordered them to pay $49,539,234, before trebling to $148,617,702 under the federal antitrust laws. The case was subsequently settled against the Mitsui defendants.

On January 27, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement with DCV and DuCoa under which those defendants will transfer essentially all of their assets to purchasers of choline chloride.

Further information about the settlement is available at http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/vit/ or can be obtained by contacting the attorneys working on the matter, Michael D. Hausfeld, Brian A. Ratner or Brent W. Landau.

Internet links:

» Six Big Vitamin Makers Are Said to Agree to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Pricing Lawsuit

» 4 Companies Found Liable In Price Fixing Of Vitamin B4

» Settlement Website

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King, in our San Francisco office.
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, Jon T. King, or Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. in our San Francisco office, or Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, D.C. office.
 

For more information about the case and the settlement, please go to the following link: http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com/taq/. For more information about the case, please contact Brian Ratner in Washington, D.C.
 

On November 7, 2008, the Honorable Paul L. Friedman denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations were plausible and that Plaintiffs were entitled to take discovery on their claims.

For more information, please contact Sathya S. Gosselin or William P. Butterfield.
 

For more information, please contact Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, DC office.
 

For more information, please contact Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, DC office.
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King in our San Francisco office.
 

The court has granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and has twice denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court also granted final approval to a settlement with Defendants UPM-Kymmene and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Raflatac, Inc., which calls for those defendants to pay $8.25 million and cooperate with Plaintiffs.

For more information, please contact Brian A. Ratner, Brent W. Landau, and Reena Armillay Gambhir.
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King, in our San Francisco office.
 

On February 11, 2009, Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had alleged a plausible conspiracy and were entitled to take discovery on their claims. 
 
For more information, please contact Robert G. Eisler or Steig D. Olson.

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King in our San Francisco office.
 

On May 11, 2007, the Court granted final approval to a settlement under which Defendants will create a $13 million Settlement Fund, comply with certain requirements regarding bundled contracts, and pay the costs of notice and administration of the settlement.

If you have any questions regarding this litigation, please contact Brent W. Landau.

Further information about the Settlement, including a claim form, is available at www.endosettlement.com.
 

Hausfeld LLP filed the first lawsuit in the country alleging that a cartel of egg producers through the auspices of their trade groups -- United Egg Producers (UEP); United States Egg Marketers (USEM); and United Egg Association (UEA) -- engaged in an unlawful scheme to artificially inflate egg prices by restricting the supply of both laying hens and eggs across the country.

The Firm has been appointed by the Court to be one of the four co-lead firms responsible for managing this litigation on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of eggs.

In June 2010, the firm announced a $25 million partial settlement with Land O' Lakes, Moark, and Norco.  

If you have questions or information about this case, please contact Megan E. Jones, James J. Pizzirusso, or Brent W.  Landau.
 

The Special Master in the case issued a recommendation to deny motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which the district court affirmed.

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King in our San Francisco office.
 

For more information, please contact Robert G. Eisler in our Philadelphia office or Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, DC office.

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Jon T. King, or Arthur N. Bailey, Jr.
 

The Court appointed Hausfeld LLP as co-lead counsel with Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy to represent the potential class of purchasers harmed by the conspiracy. Following over a year of difficult negotiations, expert analysis, and discovery, Plaintiffs negotiated a comprehensive $200 million settlement of the claims of both U.S. purchasers and U.K. purchasers who choose to file a claim for a refund. The groundbreaking settlement, primarily negotiated by Chairperson Michael Hausfeld, represents the first time foreign purchasers have been afforded an opportunity to participate in a settlement on an equal footing with purchasers in the United States. The settlement provides for a refund of 33% of the surcharge paid on each ticket purchased during the conspiracy period, an amount Plaintiffs' expert determined was approximately 100% of the damages caused by the conspiracy. The settlement was heralded by Judge Breyer as “a very good result” for the class. See September 26, 2008 Hearing Transcript, at 29.

Any individual or entity that purchased an airline ticket from BA or VA for long haul travel in the United States or the United Kingdom during the class period is eligible for a refund under the terms of the Settlement. Corporate purchasers who paid for travel for their employees during this time period are eligible for a refund for each qualifying employee ticket purchased. Complete details of the settlements are available on the Settlement Administrator’s website created to notify the class, www.airpassengerrefund.com. Three objectors in the United Kingdom have appealed the Court’s order approving the settlements, so all payments to class members will be delayed until that appeal is resolved.

The air passenger case is being litigated by an international team of attorneys providing expertise on both United States and United Kingdom law. In the United States, the action is being litigated by Michael D. Hausfeld, Michael P. Lehmann and Christopher Lebsock. In the United Kingdom, Anthony Maton  is litigating the action.
 

Following raids by law enforcement agencies around the world on February 14, 2006, Hausfeld LLP attorneys filed class action lawsuits in the United States seeking to recover the damages inflicted by the conspiracy. The consolidated action, which is now pending in the Eastern District of New York, seeks damages for overcharges incurred with respect to air cargo shipments to, from and within the United States. The firm was appointed co-lead counsel for the class by the Court. In addition, due to Hausfeld LLP's foreign law expertise and European presence, the firm also was appointed foreign purchaser lead counsel.

Shortly after filing the lawsuits, Michael Hausfeld, Chairperson of Hausfeld LLP, negotiated an innovative settlement with Defendant Lufthansa, whereby the company paid $85 million to resolve its U.S. liability and agreed to provide extensive cooperation with the plaintiffs in the United States as they prosecute their claims against the other Defendants. Hausfeld LLP represents large corporate purchasers of air shipping services including members from the Fortune 1000 and Interbrand Best Global Brands, as well as small and medium sized companies. We represent clients headquartered in the United States, Europe, South America, India, and China.

On August 21, 2009, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that “the admissions of price-fixing by so many of the defendants certainly ‘are suggestive enough to render a § 1 conspiracy plausible.’” The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that claims involving import commerce were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. The case will now proceed into the discovery phase.

In addition to its work in the United States, Hausfeld LLP’s London affiliate, Hausfeld & Co., has filed an action in the High Court in London, Emerald Supplies, Ltd. et al. v. British Airways, seeking to recover damages incurred by shippers who shipped goods by air to, from, and within the European Union. This action is being pursued on a representative basis on behalf of all entities that elect to join the case. As in the United States, Hausfeld LLP represents both smaller businesses who overpaid as a result of the conspiracy and major corporate purchasers of air freight shipping services, such Dana Corp., that suffered tens of millions of dollars of damages as a result of the cartel's activities.

The Air Cargo action in the United States is being litigated primarily by Michael D. Hausfeld, Bill P. Butterfield, and Brent W. Landau.  The action in the United Kingdom is being litigated by Anthony Maton.

 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Jon T. King or Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. in our San Francisco office.

The firm -- which launched in November after Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll voted out name partner Michael Hausfeld -- announced on Wednesday that is opening a London office.

Hausfeld LLP's gain is a loss for Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, as the firm is now called.

Four of the five attorneys in Cohen Milstein's London office are moving over to Hausfeld, with the fifth attorney leaving to "pursue other interests," according to a statement from Hausfeld LLP.

The former Cohen Milstein attorneys joining Hausfeld's London office are partners Vincent Smith and Anthony Maton, as well as associate Scott Campbell and consultant Ingrid Gubbay. Smith and Maton are heading the London office, which will be called Hausfeld & Co. LLP.

It's not clear what the shakeup means for Cohen Milstein's future in London. The firm did not respond to a request for comment on the issue on Wednesday. Hausfeld said in a statement that the London office is "an important global strategic presence and ensures that [Hausfeld LLP] is perfectly positioned to continue its pursuit for access to justice throughout Europe and elsewhere."

The focus of the new firm is on large, international and national litigation involving individuals, corporations and organizations.

In addition to the London lawyers, 17 other attorneys from Cohen Milstein followed Hausfeld to his new firm, and it now has a total of 25 associates and partners.

Europe has seen a rise in consumer and investor activism, and an increasing willingness by legislators to allow people to pursue mass grievances through the courts has opened the door to more legal claims.

“Are class actions coming to Europe? Under the name of ‘collective actions’ they’re here already,” Malcolm Carlisle, managing director of the European Justice Forum (EJF) says.

Several countries, including Sweden and the Netherlands, have provisions for class action-style litigation, while several others, including France and Italy, are mulling proposals for systems of their own.

The European Commission is also considering whether to recommend class actions for those affected by offences such as price-fixing.

Class actions uncontroversial

Class actions are, in themselves, uncontroversial. The ability to group together large numbers of claims relating to a single issue or company provides an efficient and cost-effective way of settling an issue that would otherwise threaten to clog up the courts for years.

They also provide an opportunity for redress for individuals who cannot afford to bring a claim themselves.

Class actions offer “an effective means of access to justice on behalf of the collective body of victims,” Michael Hausfeld, of leading US litigation law firm Hausfeld LLP says.

But in the United States, where they have been a feature of the legal landscape for decades, class actions have been hailed by some, but blamed by others for fuelling a multi-billion dollar litigation industry.

Critics have described the class action process in the United States as a ‘toxic cocktail’, in which several elements combine to make litigation risky to defend for companies. As a result, many choose to settle class actions, paying out millions of dollars, even if they have little merit, it is argued.

Litigation worry

“If US-style class actions came to Europe they could transform the litigation landscape,” Guy Pendell, a partner in the Dispute Resolution Group at law firm CMS Cameron McKenna says.

“The good news is that it isn’t looking very likely at the moment, because several of the elements that exist in the US to make class actions the ‘toxic cocktail’ simply don’t exist in the UK and Europe. There are not jury trials for that kind of action, there are not contingency fees, there are no punitive damages,” Pendell says.

But others fear that even if a European class action process were not a carbon copy of the costly American system, their introduction would inevitably lead to a rise in litigation.

“There are a lot of people in Europe who think that the American system is a ‘toxic cocktail’ of ingredients, all of which need to be present,” says the EJF’s Carlisle. “They pick off different ingredients of the US system and say we either don’t have that in Europe or we won’t introduce it.

“But you are left with the point that litigation is expensive – and class action litigation is particularly expensive. Who is going to provide that money?

“The only people likely to be willing to do so are law firms or litigation funding firms who will agree to fund the cost of litigation in return for a share of the damages,” Carlisle says. “That strong financial incentive to provide funding is the core of the US system.”

The rise of professional investors willing to bankroll court cases (see Third Party Litigation Funding, 29 Jan) eases the main risk faced by potential litigants in Europe – that they may lose and would be faced with a hefty bill for their opponent’s legal expenses. That is likely to encourage more court claims, argue opponents.

A different way

The EJF is lobbying governments for a civil justice system that seeks to avoid litigation.

Europe’s regulators, ombudsmen and other public authorities, who cover most areas of consumer commerce and whose task is to take action when there is a breach of regulation, have the opportunity to use their influence to encourage the wrongdoer to make voluntary restitution to third parties, it says.

If they do so, the company should earn a lighter sanction from the regulator.

But Hausfeld says none of the firms found guilty of cartel behaviour by the European Commission that he has dealt with have volunteered to compensate their victims. “Their response was that if you want me to pay then make me. That was supposedly the negotiating culture.”

Hausfeld also argues it is not a regulator’s role to wring cash from firms to repay those left out of pocket by price fixing or anticompetitive behaviour.

“If someone steals from you and you know who it was and how much was taken, you deserve to have it back. That is not a government’s function, it’s a function of civil law.”

Recession worries

The fact that a number of countries are considering introducing class actions at a time when a global economic recession is biting deep, poses an unwanted extra headache to business, Carlisle says.

“I’m worried by the relatively easy assumption within government that the US system is an option and they can control it. I simply don’t believe that will be the case,” Carlisle says.

But other companies are often victims of price-fixing as much as consumers, Hausfeld points out. Enabling them to bring collective claims for redress may offer them a lifeline in the bleak economic climate.

“Companies who were reluctant before to pursue claims through litigation probably now find that adding to their net profitability by recovering that which was unlawfully taken is not only a good but a necessary business decision,” Hausfeld says.

“Class actions are not necessarily appropriate for all circumstances. Nor should they be used to ‘extort’ money from companies that have not committed any wrongs. But they provide a legitimate means of providing mass access to justice where there has been a mass wrong,” Hausfeld says.

What Should Companies Do?

As the legal landscape across Europe changes, companies should take steps to protect themselves as part of their risk management strategies.

Businesses should consider the patchwork of legal procedures that are in place in different parts of Europe and their potential exposure in each nation in which they operate. A suit in Bulgaria, which has a full US-style class action system, would have different consequences than one in the Netherlands, for example.

“Companies who are potentially faced with these actions should think about what insurance cover they have in place in the event that, God forbid, the juggernaut heads their way,” Maxine Cupitt, a partner in Cameron McKenna’s Dispute Resolution Group says.

Firms should decide whether they have sufficient product liability insurance to cover claims from a number of countries, some of which could be eye-wateringly high.
They would also be wise to look again at the level of their D&O insurance, to ensure they have adequate cover for lengthy price-fixing investigations that could result in large fines and a resulting class action.

At a time when shell-shocked shareholders are looking for reasons for the steep losses in their portfolios, businesses should also look again at their investor relations.

“Companies should look very carefully at how they pass information to shareholders. In the US a lot of the cases arise from the allegation that information was not disclosed to shareholders soon enough,” John Batch, senior vice president in the FINPRO practice at Marsh says.
 

Firm chairman Michael Hausfeld set up Hausfeld LLP in November 2008. All former London CMHT lawyers have now decided to continue working alongside Hausfeld – apart from Rob Murray who has left to pursue other interests.

Mr. Hausfeld noted, "the development provides Hausfeld LLP with an important global strategic presence and ensures that it is perfectly positioned to continue its pursuit for access to justice throughout Europe and elsewhere." The firm now has 25 partners and associates worldwide.

Commenting on the move, Michael Hausfeld said: "We can confirm that Hausfeld & Co LLP looks forward to a new chapter of successful operations in London, building upon the impressive strides already made in improving access to justice for European individuals and businesses."

Vincent Smith confirmed that the London team would move from their current location at Southampton Buildings, Holborn to a permanent address in the near future.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing conflict-free litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Link to complete Washington Business Journal article.

Link to complete article on bloomberg.com

Link to complete article on bloomberg.com

Hausfeld LLP was founded in November 2008 by Michael D. Hausfeld, one of the nation’s top civil litigators, and is focused on providing conflict-free litigation services to global plaintiffs – individuals and organizations – in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights, product liability civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. Previously, Hausfeld was a name partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, and 17 of his colleagues at that firm have joined him at Hausfeld LLP.

“We have assembled a truly unique firm with the resources, experience and integrity required to achieve unprecedented results on behalf of citizens and corporations involved in large and complex disputes across multiple countries and industries,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “Our firm is singularly dedicated to delivering high caliber, aggressive representation for claimants that is free from conflicts that plague leading global transactions firms engaged on both sides of the courtroom, and the Hausfeld LLP team has a proven track record in achieving significant financial recovery for individuals and corporations.”

In addition to the new DC offices, Hausfeld LLP also announced that six Partners have joined Mr. Hausfeld from the prior firm: Richard Lewis, Robert Eisler, Michael Lehmann, Charles Tompkins, Brian Ratner and William Butterfield. Additionally, Hausfeld LLP has elevated eight Associates to Partner: Megan Jones, James Pizzirusso, Hilary Ratway, Andrew Bullion, Brent Landau, Steig Olson, Chris Lebsock and Jon King. The firm has also brought on two new junior associates and a law clerk.

With domestic resources in place - the firm has 34 staffers across its U.S offices – and a broad and deep network of global joint ventures and affiliate relationships, Hausfeld LLP is immediately positioned to represent global plaintiffs. The firm has been named co-lead counsel in 17 major cases since launching the firm in November, and has won every leadership motion in ongoing matters related to clients from the prior firm.

“Hausfeld LLP was founded on the belief that global citizens and corporations victimized by mass wrongs should have the same access to justice currently available to claimants in the United States,” added Hausfeld. “Global wrongs must be accountable to global rights. At the same time, U.S.-based corporations are seeking to not only have their interests protected domestically, but in every country they operate – and we look forward to assisting these claimants in global recovery efforts.”

Mr. Hausfeld’s career has included some of the largest and most successful class actions in the fields of human rights, discrimination and antitrust law. He was among the first lawyers in the U.S. to assert that sexual harassment was a form of discrimination prohibited by Title VII. He represented Native Alaskans whose lives were affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill; later, he negotiated a then-historic $176 million settlement from Texaco, Inc. in a racial-bias discrimination case. In Friedman v. Union Bank of Switzerland, Michael Hausfeld represented a class of victims of the Holocaust whose assets were wrongfully retained by private Swiss banks during and after World War II. He is or has been co-lead counsel in antitrust cases against manufacturers of genetically engineered foods, managed healthcare companies, bulk vitamin manufacturers, technology companies and international industrial cartels; and he was the only private lawyer permitted to attend and represent the interests of consumers worldwide in the 2003 closed hearings by the EU Commission in the Microsoft case.

Hausfeld LLP Office:
1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
202.540.7200

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants law firm providing conflict-free litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current and planned operations in London, New York City, San Francisco and multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America and Canada. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

-###-

Media Contact:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203
 

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has said that he and his aides have acted properly.
Three federal agencies and a loose consortium of state attorneys general have for several years been gathering evidence of what appears to be collusion among the banks and other companies that have helped state and local governments take approximately $400 billion worth of municipal notes and bonds to market each year.

E-mail messages, taped phone conversations and other court documents suggest that companies did not engage in open competition for this lucrative business, but secretly divided it among themselves, imposing layers of excess cost on local governments, violating the federal rules for tax-exempt bonds and making questionable payments and campaign contributions to local officials who could steer them business. In some cases, they created exotic financial structures that blew up.

People with knowledge of the evidence say investigators are not just looking at a few bad apples, but also at the way an entire market has operated for years.

“It’s rare to sell a Senate seat, but it’s not rare to sell a bond deal,” said Charles Anderson, who retired as manager of tax-exempt bond field operations for the Internal Revenue Service in 2007. “Pay-to-play in the municipal bond market is epidemic.”

Michael D. Hausfeld, an antitrust lawyer in Washington, who is representing some of the cities, counties and states entangled in the federal dragnet, called it “one of the longest-running, most economically pervasive antitrust conspiracies ever to be uncovered in the U.S.” Many of these municipalities say they did nothing wrong and were duped by financial firms, which they are suing.

The possibility of a vast web of collusion would be sobering in any case, but the issue is of particular concern now, as Congress and the incoming Obama administration prepare a big fiscal stimulus package that may spawn infrastructure projects carried out and financed at the state and local level. States and cities issue bonds to raise money to pay for things like schools and road construction, and are supposed to follow strict rules on how the proceeds are handled for investors to receive a tax exemption on the interest.

Mr. Anderson estimated that as much as $4 billion a year was vanishing into the system, based on the volume of problems he saw before retirement.

Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has said oversight of the municipal bond markets is inadequate, and has urged Congress to take steps to protect both investors and taxpayers. Congress has not taken up the initiative.

The S.E.C. and the Justice Department declined to discuss the details or status of their investigations, including in New Mexico, where work on municipal bonds is part of a federal grand jury investigation. Officials at the I.R.S. said they were giving the matter high priority and had challenged the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds in a number of places but declined to describe individual cases.

Christopher Taylor, who retired in 2007 as executive director of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, said the evidence amassed so far included tape-recorded phone calls, in which the independent specialists who are supposed to help local governments pick their bankers could be heard telling bankers: “We want you to bid on this deal, but you’re not going to get it — you’re going to get the next one. We want you to submit a sloppy bid.”

Unsuspecting governments then accepted the recommended bids, and paid too much, he said. Mr. Taylor also cited evidence of banks being paid in cities where they did no work at all, apparently to reward them for throwing the business to their rivals.

The business is lightly regulated, with rules governing the conduct of companies set by the municipal securities board. Municipal bond underwriters are prohibited from making campaign contributions to “buy” the business of bringing bonds to market. But no such rules govern the conduct of a type of professional who appeared in the industry about a decade ago — specialists who work with financial derivatives, like swaps and options.

In the last few years, the use of such derivatives in combination with municipal bonds has grown rapidly, market participants say. And so, it appears, has the interest of federal agents.

The federal inquiry appears to have started at the I.R.S., which was concerned that the rules for tax-exempt bonds were being trampled.

“We saw this coming and went to the Department of Justice and said, ‘Hey look! It looks as if there’s been price-fixing and bid-rigging on a major scale here,’ ” said Mr. Anderson, the retired I.R.S. manager.

The efforts have broadened into what investigators and lawyers described as a coordinated effort among the federal agencies broken down by jurisdiction.

The S.E.C. polices fraud in the municipal bond markets and is looking into whether municipal bonds are routinely certified for tax-exempt treatment, by people who perhaps know or should know they do not qualify.

The Justice Department’s criminal antitrust division has authority over bid-rigging, and that part of the investigation is being led by federal prosecutors in Manhattan. At the same time, various regional U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country are looking at whether campaign contributions and other gifts to state and local politicians were used improperly to “buy” bond-related business.

More than 30 financial services companies have been subpoenaed, including JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and the American International Group, which have recently received government assistance and in the case of A.I.G., an outright federal bailout. Several have disclosed in corporate filings that their employees have been called to testify before grand juries or have received “Wells notices” from the S.E.C. warning that an enforcement action is looming.

The disclosures follow raids by the F.B.I., in 2006, of the offices of three specialized firms that bring together local officials and the banks and other companies that seek business working on municipal bond sales.

One of the three, CDR Financial Products, of Beverly Hills, Calif., is at the heart of the federal investigation in New Mexico. Investigators there are looking at how CDR Financial came to be selected as the “swap adviser” for a $1.5 billion program — called Governor Richardson’s Investment Program, or GRIP — to raise money for road and rail construction in New Mexico.

CDR Financial and its founder, David Rubin, gave $100,000 to two of Governor Richardson’s political action committees in 2003 and 2004, and the company earned $1.5 million for advising GRIP in 2004. A Colorado political consultant, Michael Stratton, lobbied on behalf of CDR Financial, and was paid $269,000 by JPMorgan Chase during the same period, according to regulatory filings. JPMorgan was the lead underwriter on about $1.1 billion of bond sales for GRIP.

Mr. Stratton did not respond to messages requesting comment, and a JPMorgan spokesman said the bank would have no comment.

Allan Ripp, a spokesman for CDR Financial, said that Mr. Rubin had made the contributions because he supported Governor Richardson’s efforts to register people likely to vote Democratic in the presidential election. He said CDR Financial had competed fairly for the bond business and won its assignment on the merits.

Governor Richardson has said that he and his aides acted correctly at all times, and that he withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary only out of concern that the investigation might cause a long and distracting confirmation battle.

CDR Financial and the other two firms raided by the F.B.I. — Investment Management Advisory Group, known as Image, of Pottstown., Pa., and Sound Capital Management of Eden Prairie, Minn. — had attracted unfavorable attention even before the F.B.I. raids, in some cases because of campaign contributions.

In Philadelphia, Image and CDR Financial were described as “Company No. 1” and “Company No. 2” in the indictments of the former city treasurer, Corey Kemp, and other officials in 2004. CDR Financial had made political contributions and earned $415,000 for helping Philadelphia link a type of derivative called a “swaption” to its bonds. Image squired the city treasurer around by limo, and was in the running to participate in a school bond sale, but the deal fell apart when a local newspaper, The Daily News, questioned Image’s involvement.

Mr. Kemp is serving a 10-year prison sentence for accepting illegal payments in exchange for steering city bond business and other contracts to selected companies. Neither CDR Financial nor Image was formally accused of wrongdoing.

The use of derivatives in connection with municipal bonds has grown rapidly in the last five years. The packages are presented as money-savers to the municipalities, which may want to protect themselves against interest rate changes. But over the last year, as turmoil spread through the credit markets, some of the derivatives have blown up, leaving local governments stuck with unexpected costs.

That happened in Alabama, where Jefferson County linked an extraordinary number of derivatives, called interest-rate swaps, to its bonds, in some cases with the help of CDR Financial. Despite publicized concerns about whether improper payments to certain officials were behind the swaps, the county insisted the swaps were saving money. Last year, the derivatives failed, leaving the county with vast bills. Jefferson County is now at risk of declaring what would be the biggest governmental bankruptcy in United States history.

Even in places where the bonds and derivatives are performing as expected, irate government officials are finding they may have overpaid for various services and have inadvertently broken federal tax rules. Again and again, proceeds from tax-exempt bonds appear to have improperly generated investment income for banks and insurers.

Among the governments that have sued these financial firms are the cities of Chicago and Baltimore; Oakland and Fresno, Calif.; the state of Mississippi; and a number of counties, school districts and at least one water and sewer district. The lawsuits were consolidated in November, in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. Chicago has since abandoned that litigation.
 

Washington, D.C.-based attorney Michael D. Hausfeld - who has negotiated a $176 million racial discrimination settlement with Texaco and won $1.25 billion for Holocaust survivors in a suit against Swiss banks - filed suit accusing TVA of creating a private nuisance with the Dec. 22 spill.

The suit seeks at least $5 million and class-action status on behalf of riparian landowners along the Clinch and Emory rivers.

Knoxville attorneys W. Gordon Ball and Thomas S. Scott Jr. and Clinton attorney Bruce D. Fox also represent plaintiff land owner Larry Mays in the suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Knoxville.

The "discharge of the coal ash slurry has substantially and unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff's right to use and enjoy his property," the suit states, by diminishing water quality, the surrounding environment and quality of life, and by causing "a substantial disturbance in comfort and conveniences, including their peace of mind, as well as fear, stress, annoyance, and anxiety."

For instance, the suit continues, landowners have "been warned about allowing their children to play outside, not to go outdoors if they suffer from asthma, not to do heavy exercise outside, all due to the possibility of breathing the fly ash."

The suit notes that water tests have revealed elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, lead and thallium, and that the 40-acre pond has a history of leaks and failures.

The suit seeks to include as a class "all individuals who own or owned real property located on the Emory or Clinch Rivers downstream from the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County … beginning on December 22, 2008 and ending on the date of trial who suffered available damages under Tennessee nuisance law."

The suit seeks "aggregate compensatory damages in excess of $5 million."

Hausfeld headed the antitrust group at Cohen, Milstein, Hasufeld & Toll until November, when he started his own firm, Hausfeld LLP, according to press reports.

"Mr. Hausfeld's career has included some of the largest and most successful class actions in the fields of human rights, discrimination and antitrust law," his bio on the firm's Web site states. "He … was among the first lawyers in the U.S. to assert that sexual harassment was a form of discrimination prohibited by Title VII; he successfully tried the first case establishing that principle. He represented Native Alaskans whose lives were affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill; later, he negotiated a then-historic $176 million settlement from Texaco, Inc. in a racial-bias discrimination case."

He represented, free of charge, Holocaust victims whose assets were retained by private Swiss banks during and after World War II, obtaining a $1.25 billion settlement.

Among current cases is an effort against the tobacco industry with regard to the sale of and representations on "light" cigarettes.
 

But Hausfeld appears to have landed on his feet. On Friday his name name popped up in connection with two headline-making cases.

Hausfeld is representing plaintiffs in a class action filed in federal court in Knoxville against the Tennessee Valley Authority, which he is accusing of knowing for decades of problems with the retention pond at its Kingston, Tenn., plant. Last month, 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic coal ash sludge broke through the wall around the pond, covering hundreds of acres and at least a dozen homes in the muck. Ball & Scott of Knoxville and Fox & Farley of Clinton, Tenn., are cocounsel in Hausfeld's suit, which is available here, via Courthouse News. (Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of Montgomery has filed a rival class action against the TVA, so we'll have to wait and see which set of plaintiffs lawyers ends up in charge of this litigation.)

To keep himself busy in the meantime, Hausfeld is representing some of the cities, counties, and states entangled in a federal investigation into bid-rigging in the municipal bond business, according to The New York Times. The investigation, which prompted Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico to withdraw his nomination for Commerce Secretary, involves what the Times says appears to be "collusion among the banks and other companies" in a scheme to overcharge the municipalities. Hausfeld told the Times that the scheme is "one of the longest-running, most economically pervasive antitrust conspiracies ever to be uncovered in the U.S." Sounds like money for an enterprising plaintiffs antitrust lawyer!
 

Mr. Hausfeld began in the predecessor firms that became Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll in 1971. He was the head of the respected firm's Antitrust and International practice groups and has been described by one of the country's leading civil rights columnists as an "extremely penetrating lawyer."

Hausfeld LLP will continue doing the ground-breaking legal work that Michael Hausfeld is most known for in the U.S.; he has obtained billions of dollars in U.S. courts for victims of anticompetitive practices.

But its focus will not be limited to proceedings in U.S. courts. According to Mr. Hausfeld, "My new firm will have a legal practice that is global in nature and will offer to citizens of many countries the ability to have the same meaningful access to justice and level the playing field that is now available to U.S. citizens. One way that this will be accomplished is through a joint venture that can represent citizens of Asian countries, such as China or India, in obtaining redress against cartels."

In addition to the Washington office, Hausfeld LLP plans to operate in London, New York City and San Francisco. In London, the firm will work on a variety of matters including competition law, global energy issues and will continue to represent non-U.S. clients in U.S. litigation. The new firm has established affiliate legal relationships with like-minded law firms in Australia, South Africa, China, Brazil, Korea, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Canada, and throughout the EU and Eastern Europe.

Hausfeld LLP is unique in that it offers representation of claimants on a global basis in multiple legal disciplines.

For additional information, interviews, photos or other materials, please contact Deborah Schwartz.

“My new firm will have a legal practice that is global in nature and will offer to citizens of many countries the ability to have the same meaningful access to justice and a level the playing field that is now available to US citizens,” Hausfeld said in a statement. “One way that this will be accomplished is through a joint venture that can represent citizens of Asian countries, such as China or India, in obtaining redress against cartels.”

In addition to its new Washington office, Hausfeld plans to operate in London, New York and San Francisco. In the UK, the firm said it would focus on a variety of matters including competition law, global energy issues and representing non-US clients in US litigation.

Hausfeld will provide domestic and international legal services in the areas of competition, human rights, product liability civil rights, environmental, and securities.

Deborah Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the firm, said yesterday that Hausfeld is opening his own law office, Hausfeld LLP, on Nov. 10 and will do work in the U.S. and internationally. Schwartz said the split
with Cohen Milstein was "very amicable.''

Hausfeld's employment ended Nov. 6, managing partner Steven Toll said in an interview. Toll declined to elaborate on the cause of departure, calling it a "private matter and a personnel issue.''

Hausfeld worked for Cohen Milstein since its inception in 1986 and with some of the name partners before then, Toll said. Hausfeld was head of the firm's antitrust and international practices.

Hausfeld's secretary, Laura Robertson, didn't return a call seeking comment yesterday. A receptionist at the firm said that Hausfeld was out for the day.

Hausfeld helped negotiate a $176 million settlement from Texaco Inc. in a 1996 racial-discrimination case. 

--Editors: Cécile Daurat, Michael Hytha.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Cynthia Cotts in New York at +1-212-617-5986 or ccotts@bloomberg.net
Bob Van Voris in New York at +1-212-617-4171 or rvanvoris@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Patrick Oster at +1-212-617-4088 or poster@bloomberg.net