THE FURTH FIRM LLP has represented clients in a wide variety of antitrust matters, including in trials, arbitrations, appeals, federal direct purchaser class actions, California indirect purchaser class actions, other state class actions including in Alaska, Wisconsin, and Kansas, and also has represented clients in matters before government agencies.

THE FURTH FIRM LLP has been appointed by courts to numerous plaintiffs' counsel leadership positions in antitrust class action cases, and its expertise and capabilities have been widely recognized across the country.

Set forth below is a representative sample of some of THE FURTH FIRM LLP's current and concluded antitrust cases.


Antitrust Trial, Arbitration and Appellate Expertise

American Central Eastern Texas Gas, L.P., et al. v. Union Pacific Resources Group, Inc., et al., (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division) (Case No. 2-09-CV-0239-TJW)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs in the trial of an antitrust case involving the natural gas industry. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to monopolize the gas processing market in Panola County, Texas, and also alleged Sherman Act Section 1 violations relating to an agreement in restraint of trade between Union Pacific Resources, a gas processor, along with its successor in interest, and Koch Industries, a gas gatherer, which transports gas from the wellhead to the processing plant. Following several days of a jury trial and THE FURTH FIRM LLP's cross-examination of a key defendant witness, defendant Union Pacific Resources entered into a confidential settlement and concluded the jury trial portion of the case. Another defendant, Koch Industries, settled following voir dire and before opening arguments.

Commenting to the jury, Judge T. John Ward stated the following on March 2, 2001:

"I did what these people did for a little over 30 years. You may not know it, but you have had another opportunity to see some of the finest trial advocacy that the Court has seen since I've been on the bench.

These lawyers are good. You've seen some of the top lawyers in the country here today. You've got some on the West Coast and you've got them on the East Coast . . . I do want you to know that you've seen some of the finest advocacy and professionalism that the Court has had the pleasure to see since I've been on the bench, so you got a special treat even though you might not have fully appreciated it." (See Transcript, 780 – 781)

Outside the presence of the jury, Judge Ward continued:

"I do mean what I said about your professionalism and the way you have handled yourself in this case. These are difficult cases. Not only have you been professional in the trial of the case, but in your preparation and handling of all matters before the Court, and you have my extreme appreciation." (See Transcript, 781).

In a subsequent arbitration related to the same case, THE FURTH FIRM LLP represented its plaintiff clients against another defendant, Duke Energy, one of the world's largest energy companies. As the Houston Business Journal reported in an article dated June 21, 2002 titled "Judge tells Duke to comply with arbitration decision in gas case," THE FURTH FIRM LLP achieved an arbitration victory against Duke. The article quotes firm attorney Thomas P. Dove about this "David and Goliath" story, and details the arbitrator's finding that Duke was engaging in illegal monopolistic practices and his order requiring Duke to supply the plaintiffs with additional natural gas processing capacity.

In a subsequent appellate proceeding before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, THE FURTH FIRM LLP successfully persuaded the court to uphold plaintiffs' previous victories against Duke before the arbitrator and the trial judge that confirmed the arbitration award. See American Cent. Eastern Texas Gas Co. v. Union Pacific Resources Group, Inc., 2004 WL 136091 (5th Cir. 2004). This appellate victory was featured in the lead story in the February 6, 2004 issue of BNA's Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report in an article titled "Award in Section 2 Gas Industry Arbitration is Upheld by Fifth Circuit."


Antitrust Federal Class Actions

In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware) (Case No. MDL 1717-JJF) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1717)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed co-interim class counsel in this nationwide antitrust class action on brought on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of Intel x86 microprocessors. The Court will appoint class counsel when it addresses plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Intel monopolized the x86 microprocessor market through unlawful predatory practices that injured its main competitor—AMD—and in turn caused consumer end-users to pay higher prices for Intel microprocessors and restricted their freedom of choice to purchase AMD microprocessors.

In re: Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut) (Case No. 3:04-md-1631) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1631)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed co-chair of the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this nationwide antitrust class action. The plaintiffs are printing companies that are direct purchasers of publication paper, which is used to print magazines among other products. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who are among the world's largest paper manufacturers, conspired to illegally fix the price of publication paper sold in the United States. THE FURTH FIRM LLP'S clients are printing companies from Illinois and California.

In re: High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York) (Master File No. 00-MD-1368 CLB) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1368)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP wwas appointed co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this nationwide antitrust class action brought on behalf of the direct purchasers of high pressure decorative laminates. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant manufacturers—Wilsonart, Formica, and International Paper Company (IPC)—conspired to fix the price of high pressure laminates sold in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. High pressure decorative laminates are created by fusing sheets of paper or synthetic materials under high pressure to create a hard, durable, versatile commodity widely used for surfacing kitchen and bathroom countertops, furniture, flooring, automotive and aerospace components, among other things. bowling alleys, and store fixtures. Plaintiffs obtained settlements from various defendants exceeding $40 million.

In re: Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (Master File No. 01-CV-111) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1402)

THE FURTH FIRM is Class Counsel for the Food Purchasers Class in this class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of microcrystalline cellulose, or MCC, a substance made from wood pulp and used as a food ingredient (for texturizing, emulsifying and fat replacement) and in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and vitamins. The plaintiffs alleged that the two defendants, FMC Corporation, a Philadelphia-based corporation, and Asahi-Kasei Corp., a Japanese corporation, violated U.S. antitrust laws (Section 1 of the Sherman Act) by conspiring to divide markets for MCC, such that FMC agreed not to compete in Asia-Pacific markets and Asahi agreed not to compete in Europe and the United States. The complaint alleged that the conspiracy gave FMC an artificial monopoly in the United States between 1984 and 1997 that allowed FMC to charge supra-competitive prices for MCC. On November 17, 2006, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania gave final approval to a $25 million settlement with FMC; the court had previously approved a $25 million settlement with Asahi, bringing the total settlements to $50 million.

In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation; In re Employee-Benefit Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey) (Case Nos. 2:04-cv-5184 FSH and 2:05-cv-1079 FSH (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1663)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is among the counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of clients of insurance brokerages including Marsh, Inc. and Aon Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant brokerages, as well as numerous defendant insurance defendant insurance companies, conspired to allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for the placement of insurance policies. Plaintiffs further allege that the brokerages unlawfully received secret contingent commission payments from the insurer defendants which were not properly disclosed to the brokerage's clients. Plaintiffs assert claims under federal and state antitrust laws, as well as under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and state law claims for unfair and/or deceptive trade practices and breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

One of the firm's clients in the this case is the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, the operator of the world famous Golden Gate Bridge.

In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. M-02-1486 PJH) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1486)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee representing a putative nationwide class of indirect purchasers of DRAM. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who are among the world's largest manufacturers of DRAM, conspired to illegally fix the price of DRAM sold in the United States, causing consumers and others to pay more for DRAM and products containing DRAM than would have been the case in the absence of the conspiracy. THE FURTH FIRM LLP represents a client who assembled and sold specially configured and high performance computers in California during the class period.

Nurse Wages Cases: Reed, et al. v. Advocate Healthcare, Inc. et al., (U.S. District Court, Northern District Illinois, No. 06-C 3337) , Clarke, et al. v. Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corporation, et al., (U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, No. 06-2377), Maderazo, et al. v. Vanguard Health Systems a/k/a/ Baptist Health Systems, et al., (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas) and Unger et al. v. Albany Medical Center, et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York).

In these four separate cases, each of which alleges that in their particular markets the named defendant healthcare providers have conspired to both fix and depress wages being paid to the firm's clients, the nurse plaintiffs, THE FURTH FIRM LLP is co-lead counsel of record, and in the Reed matter is functioning as Lead Counsel for all pre-trial purposes. Class action status and treatment is currently being sought in each of these antitrust actions.

In re: Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina) (Case No. 1:04MD1622) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1622)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of certain types of cotton yarn and polycotton yarn. Plaintiffs allege that several defendant manufacturers conspired to fix the prices of cotton yarn and polycotton yarn in violation of the Sherman Act. These products are utilized in connection with the manufacture of items such as home furnishings, apparel, industrial fabrics, automotive components, upholstery, hosiery and sewing thread. THE FURTH FIRM LLP's client is a former sock manufacturer from Alabama.

In re: Urethane Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas) (Case No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1616)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of urethanes and urethane chemicals. These products are used to manufacture foam and non-foam polyurethane products, including flexible foam, rigid foam, cast elastomers, thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers, surface coatings, adhesives and sealants, polyurethane fibers, and other polyurethane products. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant manufacturers of urethanes and urethane chemicals conspired to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act. THE FURTH FIRM LLP'S client is an Ohio company that custom molds urethanes and plastics.

In re: Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio) (Case No. 2:04-md-01638) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 1638)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is among the counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of all entities and individuals that purchased certain resins for joining sand and other materials used to make sand cores and molds for metal casting ("foundry resins") from Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to illegally fix the prices of foundry resins in violation of the Sherman Act.

Fairhaven Power Company v. Encana Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California) (Case No. CIV F 04 6256 OWW LJO

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this class action brought on behalf of all business entities in California that directly purchased natural gas in California and/or at the California border from one or more of the defendants, including Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Duke Energy, and El Paso Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to fix the price of natural gas.

Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., et al. v. Tyco Health Care Group L.P., et al. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Master File No. CV-05-6419 MRP (AJWx))

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is among the counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities that purchased pulse oximetry equipment directly from Tyco Healthcare L.P. or its subsidiaries, Nellcor Puritan Bennett and Mallinckrodt, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices of pulse oximetry sensors and cables, engaged in various anticompetitive bundling practices that involved unrelated Tyco products, and used OEM "co-marketing" agreements to obtain and maintain monopoly power in the relevant markets by blocking its rivals' access to these markets. Plaintiffs further allege that Tyco's conduct impaired and/or excluded competitors from the relevant markets even where rival products were superior to and/or less expensive than Tyco's.

Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) (Case No. 3:03 C 03359 SBA)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of consumers that purchased "department store cosmetics products" made by, or sold by, numerous defendants including Neiman-Marcus, Nordstrom, Saks, Target, Estee Lauder, L'Oreal, Christian Dior and Chanel. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of department stores cosmetics products.

The defendants have agreed to settle this case by making available to consumers free department stores cosmetics with a total retail value of $175 million.

Young, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) (Case No. 3-04-3514-VRW)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of consumer purchasers of tableware products, which consist generally of dinnerware (china), crystal stemware, glassware, flatware (sterling and stainless), and giftware. The defendants are Federated Department Stores, Inc. (which owns Macy's and Bloomingdale's among other stores), The May Department Stores Company (which owns Lord & Taylor, Marshall Field's and Robinson's May among other stores), Lenox, Inc. and Waterford Wedgwood, USA. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to restrain the sale of tableware products to retailer Bed, Bath & Beyond so as to eliminate and suppress competition in the sale of tableware to consumers in the United States.

Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc., et al. v. Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) (Case No. CV-99-07796)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action suit against the world's leading manufacturers of carbon fiber. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the price of carbon fiber in the United States. THE FURTH FIRM LLP filed suit on behalf of clients including a leading golf shaft manufacturer which uses carbon fiber in its products. Various defendants have settled for a total amount to date of $32.75 million.

In re: NBR Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania) (Case No. 03-1898)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this nationwide class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber ("NBR"). NBR is commonly used in the industrial and automotive rubber products industries. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of NBR in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

In re: Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York) (Master File No. OO Civ. 0648 LAK).

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed interim co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this nationwide class action against the defendant auction houses Christie's and Sotheby's for violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in illegal price fixing of the fees and commissions on non-internet auctions of, among other articles, fine and decorative art, antiques, furniture, collectibles, paintings, wine, jewelry, coins, stamps, vintage automobiles, sports and celebrity memorabilia and books.

The defendants settled for $412 million in cash and an additional $100 million in auction certificates.

In re: Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois); Pharmaceutical Cases I, II, and III (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Steering Committee and represented plaintiff classes of retail pharmacists in antitrust class action litigation in both federal and state court, alleging price fixing of brand name prescription drugs by two dozen of the world's largest pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers. THE FURTH FIRM LLP also was the court-appointed lead counsel in the California litigation.

All but five of the defendant manufacturers agreed to settle with the pharmacists, for over $700 million, plus commitments with respect to future pricing practices.


California Antitrust Actions

California Indirect Purchaser MSG Antitrust Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (Case No. 304471)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of Food Flavor Enhancers, which include the products Monosodium Glutamate ("MSG"), Diosodium Inosinate ("DSI" or "IMP"), Diosodium Guanylate ("DSG" or "GMP"), and the combination of IMP and GMP ("I&G"). IMP, GMP, and I&G are also known as nucleotides. Nucleotides are organic compounds used in soups, sauces, spices and other foods to enhance their flavor. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of Food Flavor Enhancers.

The defendants agreed to settle this litigation for a total of $10,590,000 in cash and an additional $600,000 in food products for donation to a food bank.

In re Laminate Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. No. 4129)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of high pressure decorative laminates. These cases allege that defendant manufacturers—Wilsonart, Formica, and International Paper Company—conspired to fix the price of high pressure laminates sold in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. A $1 billion industry in the United States, high pressure decorative laminates are created by fusing sheets of paper or synthetic materials under high pressure to create a hard, durable, versatile commodity widely used for surfacing kitchen and bathroom countertops, furniture, flooring, bowling alleys, store fixtures, and automotive and aerospace components, among other things.

Various defendants settled for a total amount of $4,500,000.

Vitamin Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. 4076)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of vitamins against domestic and foreign manufacturers of vitamin products. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant drug companies—including Hoffmann-LaRoche, Rhone-Poulenc and BASF—conspired to fix prices, allocate sales and allocate customers.

Numerous defendants settled for a total of approximately $80 million.

3M Transparent Tape Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. No. 4338)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of California purchasers of 3M's transparent tape. Plaintiffs allege that 3M unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the market for invisible and transparent home and office tape through various arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade designed primarily to restrict the availability of lower priced transparent tape products to consumers and to maintain high retail prices for its Scotch Brand retail products.

Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case as a part of a national settlement valued at approximately $42 million in which 3M resolved several related cases pending against it.

Smokeless Tobacco Cases I-IV (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. Nos. 4250, 4258, 4259 & 4262)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California consumers who purchased moist snuff smokeless tobacco products manufactured by the defendant United States Tobacco Company ("UST") and its affiliated subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege that UST engaged in unlawful conduct intended to preserve its monopoly in the moist snuff smokeless tobacco market. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on December 9, 2003.

Neoprene Cases (Superior Court, City and County of Los Angeles) (J.C.C.P. No. 4376)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of polychloroprene, also known as chloroprene rubber, PCP, and neoprene. Polychloroprene is a synthetic elastomer used in the manufacture of a variety of goods including conveyor belts, cables, shoes, wetsuits and a variety of goods requiring a flexible synthetic rubber with stiff resistance to temperature changes and other weather conditions. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the price of polychloroprene in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Plaintiffs have obtained settlements in the amount of $4,673,000, and this matter is expected to soon be concluded.

Competition Collision Center v. Crompton Corporation, et al. (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (Case No. CGC-04-431278)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of plastics additives, meaning heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and processing aids used to manufacture or process plastics. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the price of plastics additives in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

NBR Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. No. 4369)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for plaintiffs in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber ("NBR"). NBR is commonly used in the industrial and automotive rubber products industries. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of NBR in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Plaintiffs have obtained settlements from various defendants in the amount of $3,239,000 and this case is expected to soon be concluded.

Urethane Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. No. 4367)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of urethanes and urethanes chemicals, which are used to produce polyurethane products, including foams, solid polyurethanes, coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers. They are used in a wide variety of products, including paints and varnishes, carpet, cushions, packaging foam, insulation, footwear, medical devices, bedding, and other textiles. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of urethanes and urethanes chemicals in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Villa, et al. v. Crompton Corporation, et al. (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (Case No. CGC-03-419116)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of ethylene propylene diene monomer ("EPDM"), which is one of the most widely used synthetic rubbers. EPDM is used extensively in the automotive industry, including in weather stripping and seals, glass-run channels, radiators, tubing, hoses, belts, and electrical insulation. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the price of EPDM in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Plaintiffs have obtained settlements from various defendants in the amount of $3,730,000 and this case is continuing.

Automobile Antitrust Cases I, II (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. 4298 and 4303)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California purchasers of new cars. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant car manufacturers conspired to stabilize and maintain the prices for new vehicles sold or leased in California by preventing new vehicles sold in Canada from being imported into the United States. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Carbon Black Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. 4323)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed to the plaintiffs' counsel Executive Committee in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of carbon black, an engineered carbon compound made primarily from petroleum-based feedstock. Carbon black is used in the manufacturer of products including tires and industrial rubber products, including automotive hoses, belts, gaskets, weather stripping, molding, sheeting, and engine mounts. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of carbon black in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Electrical Carbon Products Cases (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (J.C.C.P. 4294)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is counsel for the plaintiffs in this class action brought on behalf of California indirect purchasers of electrical carbon products, which are carbon brushes and current collectors used in the manufacture of direct current electric motors, automotive applications and other transit applications, as well as consumer products, and also refers to mechanical carbon products for use in pump and compressor industries. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of electrical carbon products in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Abid, et al. v. Grosvenor Bus Lines, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco) (CGC-03-424619)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is lead counsel for plaintiffs in this class action brought on behalf of hotel employees and other sales agents who are paid by commission for selling sightseeing bus tours of San Francisco and other nearby tourist destinations. The suit alleges that the three major San Francisco sightseeing tour operators, Grosvenor Bus Lines, Inc. dba Coach USA, Inc./Gray Line San Francisco Sightseeing, Tower Tours LLC, and SF Navigatour, Inc. dba Super Sightseeing Tours, agreed to price-fix the commissions they pay to the sales agents and to jointly lower the commissions to anticompetitive levels in violation of California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.

Various defendants agreed to settle this case for a total amount of $3,115,000, and this matter is expected to be soon concluded.


Other State Antitrust Actions

Alaska Antitrust Actions

Alakayak, et al. v. All American Seafoods, Inc., et al (Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage) (Case No. 3AN-95-4676 CIV)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP was appointed co-class counsel for plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of salmon fishermen in Bristol Bay, Alaska against salmon processors and importers. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to depress the prices paid to the fishermen for salmon in violation of Alaska's antitrust laws.

Numerous defendants settled for a total amount of approximately $40 million.

Kansas Antitrust Actions

McGraw, et al. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) (District Court of Johnson County, Kansas) (Case No. 04-CV-7946)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of Kansas purchasers of 3M's transparent tape. Plaintiffs allege that 3M unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the market for invisible and transparent home and office tape through various arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade designed primarily to restrict the availability of lower priced transparent tape products to consumers and to maintain high retail prices for its Scotch Brand retail products.

Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case as a part of a national settlement valued at approximately $42 million in which 3M resolved several related cases pending against it.

Wisconsin Antitrust Actions

Talabac, et al. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) (Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) (Case No. 04CV007826)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of Wisconsin purchasers of 3M's transparent tape. Plaintiffs allege that 3M unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the market for invisible and transparent home and office tape through various arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade designed primarily to restrict the availability of lower priced transparent tape products to consumers and to maintain high retail prices for its Scotch Brand retail products.

Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case as a part of a national settlement valued at approximately $42 million in which 3M resolved several related cases pending against it.

Feuerabend v. UST, Inc. et al. (Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County) (Case No. 02-CV-7124)

THE FURTH FIRM LLP is co-lead counsel in a class action brought on behalf of Wisconsin consumers who purchased moist snuff smokeless tobacco products manufactured by the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Wisconsin Antitrust Law by attempting to monopolize, and monopolizing, the market for moist snuff smokeless tobacco resulting in fewer choices of competing moist snuff smokeless tobacco products and supra-competitive prices for consumers. On May 10, 2004, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.


Back to Top