Antitrust
Collusion among competitors to fix prices, schemes to affect relationships along a stream of distribution, attempts to monopolize an industry, and more.
Online Travel Sites
Green & Noblin has filed a class action lawsuit against certain online travel sites which alleges that certain internet providers fixed prices for hotel rooms with certain hotel operators during the time period 1/1/2003 through 12/31/2012 by agreeing to charge the same rate for hotel rooms.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Expedia, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXPE), Travelocity.com LP, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Booking.com, Priceline.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCLN) , and Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. conspired with hotel retailers Hilton Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: HLT), Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: HOT), Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE: MAR), Trump International Hotels Management, LLC, Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, and Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. over a multi-year period to keep the prices of hotel rooms artificially high.
This case is currently pending in Texas. Do you think you may have a claim? Contact us and we will discuss it with you.
Lithium Ion Batteries
Green & Noblin, PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court on behalf of persons or entities who purchased lithium ion batteries and/or products containing lithium ion batteries from the world’s leading lithium ion battery manufacturers, including LG Chem, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony, Samsung, Hitachi, and Maxell Corporation of America.
Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of federal and state antitrust and state consumer protection laws, Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of lithium ion batteries used in consumer electronic goods, such as notebook computers (laptops), cell phones, digital cameras music players, etc., resulting in overcharges to consumers. If you purchased a lithium ion battery sold separately, or a device containing a lithium-ion battery, such as a notebook computer, cell phone, digital camera (including video cameras), battery-operated power tools, electronic games such as the Nintendo Wii, or music player, between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2011, you may be entitled to compensation. Please contact us by clicking here.
CRT (Cathode Ray Tube Product)
Class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court on behalf of persons or entities who purchased Cathode Ray Tube Products (CRT) indirectly from the world’s leading CRT manufacturers, including LG Philips, Samsung, Toshiba, Hitachi, Panasonic, MT Picture Display, Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Co., Tatung Company of America, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, IRICO Group Corp., Thai CRT Company, and Samtel Color, Ltd. Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of federal and state antitrust and state consumer protection laws, Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of CRT Products, such as Televisions and Computer Monitors, resulting in overcharges to consumers. The pending lawsuits are in the District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917. The European Union assessed a record fine on the CRT manufacturers for their illegal conduct. (To read the press release, click here.) For additional information, please click here. If you purchased a CRT Product between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, please contact us by clicking here.
Refrigerant Compressors
According to sources from the Brazilian government, searches and seizures made in connection with its investigation “yielded remarkable evidence” of a price-fixing cartel among refrigerant compressor manufacturers. News reports state that the investigation began near the end of 2008 when one of the companies advised authorities of the alleged cartel in exchange for administrative and criminal immunity. On or about February 17, 2009, media reported that Brazilian competition authorities raided the offices of Whirlpool S.A. in connection with its potential involvement in a global price-fixing and market allocation conspiracy in the market for compressor products. In addition, the Brazilian police noted that the companies involved in the alleged conspiracy had been exchanging confidential information for more than 12 years.
Liquid Crystal Displays
In February 2007, Green & Noblin, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of persons or entities who purchased Liquid Crystal Displays ("LCD") indirectly from the world’s leading LCD manufacturers, including: LG Philips, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Toshiba, Hitachi, Sanyo Epson, NEC, IDT, AU Optronics, Chi Mei Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and Hannstar Display. Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of federal and state antitrust and state consumer protection laws, Defendants colluded among themselves and certain co-conspirators to fix the price of LCDs sold in the United States at supracompetitive prices. As a result of this allegedly unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs allege they paid artificially high prices for LCDs. Currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California, this lawsuit was coordinated for pre-trial proceedings with a number of related actions and is captioned In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827.
If you are a purchaser of Liquid Crystal Displays or you have information that may be helpful to the litigation please contact us.
Price Fixing by United Airways and Virgin Atlantic
August 8, 2006, Green & Noblin, P.C. filed an antitrust class action against United Airlines, Inc.; British Airways, PLC; and Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited seeking damages on behalf of all individuals victimized by price fixing on air passenger tickets for international flights, such as trips between London’s Heathrow Airport and U.S. airports such as San Francisco International, Los Angeles International, New York’s LaGuardia International or Chicago’s O’Hare International. The complaint alleges that starting in 2004, the airlines conspired to set and artificially raise certain fees such as surcharges for fuel.
Green & Noblin, P.C.’s lawsuit alleges that United Airlines, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic colluded and conspired to uniformly set and raise certain surcharges to avoid competitive pricing. Seeking to soften the blow of market driven competition for passenger business, the airlines are using the guise of rising oil prices to mask a price fixing scheme for fuel surcharges; however, the relationship between increasing fuel costs and the airlines’ fuel surcharges is tenuous. Green & Noblin, P.C.’s lawsuit alleges that the airlines’ uniform fuel surcharges and lockstep raises do not reflect the airlines' actual fuel costs per flight because each airline has a different purchasing strategy for fuel.
British Airways first began charging airline passengers a fuel surcharge in 2004, and shortly thereafter other airlines such as United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic implemented a similar fee. Since the implementation, the airlines have exhibited a pattern of raising the fees in lockstep, but out of synch with their actual fuel costs. For example, in April 2006, British Airways increased its fuel surcharges for long-haul flights by as much as $64 on each one way ticket. At about the same time, Virgin Atlantic began charging $64 for each one way ticket. Although United's fuel surcharges vary by flight and from day to day, the surcharge on a one-way ticket between New York and London, a route serviced by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, is about $67.
The airlines’ illegal activity is believed to target individuals and corporations purchasing one-way or round trip tickets for flights primarily between London’s Heathrow Airport and cities in the United States such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or San Francisco, but may exist for other long haul flights as well. The allegations of illegal price fixing are also being investigated by U.S. Department of Justice and the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading.
If you purchased a one-way or round trip ticket for an international flight and believe you were a victim of this cartel, please call Green & Noblin, P.C., at (415) 477-6700 or by clicking here to discuss your rights.
Collusion Among Auto Manufacturers
Green & Noblin, P.C. filed a class action on behalf of purchasers and lessees of new cars to recover supracompetitive prices maintained by auto manufacturers' attempts to prevent less expensive Canadian cars from entering the U.S. market.
Cars in Canada typically cost between 20 and 35 percent less than in the U.S. For example, adjusting for differences in the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canada, Ford sold its popular 2002 Windstar LX model minivan to Canadian dealers at an invoice price of $15,373 with a suggested retail price of $16,448. Ford sold the same Windstar LX to U.S. dealers at an invoice price of $20,844 and a suggested retail price of $22,340. With the fall of trade barriers and harmonizing of environmental and safety regulations, the only differences between new cars made for sale in Canada and those made for sale in the U.S. are the speedometers and odometers, and in some instances, minor differences in daytime running lamps. Consequently, U.S. consumers should have reaped the benefits of price competition. Plaintiffs allege that to prevent that competition, auto manufacturers and dealers associations took a series of coordinated steps to block the import of Canadian manufactured cars and to discourage U.S. consumers from purchasing a new car from a Canadian dealer.
If you purchased or leased a new car in the U.S. after January 1, 2001, or if you have information that may be helpful to the prosecution of this action, please contact us by clicking here.
SRAM
In December 2006, Green & Noblin, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of persons or entities who purchased static random access memory ("SRAM") chips directly from the world’s leading SRAM manufacturers, including Samsung Electronics Co., its subsidiary Samsung Semiconductor, and Micron Technology, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of federal and state antitrust and state consumer protection laws, Defendants colluded among themselves and certain co-conspirators to fix the price of SRAM at supracompetitive levels. Currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California, this lawsuit was coordinated for pre-trial proceedings with a number of related actions and is captioned In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1819. Green & Noblin, P.C. was appointed by the Court to the Steering Committee for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.
SRAM is an integrated circuit that allows data to be digitally stored and retrieved at high speed. SRAM is faster and more reliable than its cousin, DRAM ("dynamic random access memory"). SRAM does not need to be refreshed like DRAM and will retain its content as long as it receives power. While DRAM supports access times of about 60 nanoseconds, SRAM can give access times of 10 nanoseconds. SRAM is used in a variety of applications. For example, higher speed SRAMs serve as intermediate, or cache, memory in computer systems such as workstations and servers. Slower speed SRAMs serve as memory in products such as cellular telephones, pagers and modems, and MP3 players. SRAM also is used in game consoles.
Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in approximately 1998 and continuing to 2005, the prices for SRAM rose due in significant part to the effects of an industry-wide conspiracy to fix the prices of this type of memory. During 2000 alone, Plaintiffs allege the average selling price of SRAM in the United States increased by 33%. In approximately October 2006, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued subpoenas to 23 companies, including Samsung and Micron, in connection with an investigation of cartel activity in the SRAM industry during the period from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2005. A DOJ spokesperson was quoted as saying: "[t]he U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division is conducting an investigation regarding anti-competitive practices against chief SRAM manufacturers." Samsung and Micron publicly acknowledged the investigation and claim to be cooperating with the DOJ.
In 2008, the District Court certified a class of direct purchasers. In January 2009, the Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants' request to review the class certification order.
If you are a purchaser of SRAM or you have information that may be helpful to the litigation, please contact us.