Every year businesses fail to recover millions of dollars for damages they have incurred from antitrust and price fixing class action settlements. Billions of dollars are reached in antitrust class action lawsuits each year. CACM can help ensure that your company receives its share of these settlements.
Are your funds receiving their share of these settlements? If not, stop leaving money on the table. Our team of securities class action professionals can maximize the recovery of these assets for your company.
CACM’s antitrust claims filing services include:
Retailers, Wholesalers, Distributors, and Manufacturers
Healthcare, Agriculture, Technology, Utilities, and Energy
Real Estate, Insurance, and Banking
A settlement of over $576 million in cash has been reached. The lawsuit claims that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRTs from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to people and businesses that bought CRTs and products containing CRTs, such as televisions and computer monitors.
Settlements worth over $302 million have been reached with the various defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants participated in an unlawful conspiracy to restrain trade and to fix, raise or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding services for shipments within, to, or from the United States andconspired to add illegal surcharges to shipping contracts and conspired to raise and fix prices from January 1, 2001 to September 14, 2012.
Multi-billion dollar antitrust / cartel class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom alleging price-fixing of rates for airfreight shipping services by dozens of major international airlines.
The plaintiffs alleged that certain automakers and trade associations conspired in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws to prevent virtually identical, but cheaper, new cars from being exported to the United States from Canada, making new vehicle prices higher for US consumers.
Plaintiffs alleged the price cardholders of Visa-, MasterCard-, or Diners Club-branded payment cards were charged to make transactions in a foreign currency, or with a foreign merchant, between February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006, including how the prices of credit and debit/ATM card foreign transactions were set and disclosed.
Complaint alleged that the defendants, Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (“J&J”), and its subsidiary Ethicon, Inc. are the dominant manufacturer and sellers of sutures in the United States.
Complaint charged the principal United States manufacturers of high quality float glass used for construction and architectural applications with price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It further alleged that the Defendants accomplished this through a combination of collusive “energy surcharges” and price increases.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants operated a cartel, the purpose of which was to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of Thin-Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs or flat panels).
The plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy among Defendants to refuse to compete for the purchase of raw Grade A milk produced, marketed, and processed in the Northeast United States; to restrict farmers’ access to raw Grade A milk bottling plants; to eliminate and stifle competition from cooperatives and Grade A milk bottlers; and other unlawful activities designed to artificially and anti-competitively fix, stabilize, and depress the prices paid for raw Grade A milk purchased from Plaintiffs and other members of the class at levels substantially below the amount they would receive in a competitive marketplace, all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act of 1890.
The plaintiffs alleged that there was an agreement to allocate customers and territories, and an agreement not to compete that involved the defendants The Home City Ice Company, Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., Reddy Ice Corporation, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier, Inc., and Arctic Glacier International, Inc. Additionally, plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to geographically divide the United States market for the sale and delivery of packaged ice and participated in an unlawful conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Packaged Ice in the United States at artificially high levels in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of federal antitrust laws in connection with the sale of SRAM. SRAMs are memory chips used in a variety of applications, including consumer electronics products, such as cell phones, and computing products, such as workstations. Plaintiff claims that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM. Plaintiff alleged that this conspiracy resulted in customers who purchased SRAM being overcharged.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants and their alleged co-conspirators violated the antitrust laws by unlawfully conspiring to monopolize and to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale, and purchase of raw Grade A milk in the Southeast and to fix and suppress prices lower than they would have been in a competitive market. The lawsuit seeks to stop the defendants from engaging in the alleged unlawful conduct, and monetary damages for the alleged illegal conduct.
A settlement of over $6 billion in cash was reached but rejected by the court. The class includes any all persons, businesses, or other entities that accepted Visa-Branded Cards and/or MasterCard-Branded Cards in the United States at any time from January 1, 2004 to November 28, 2012. Plaintiffs allege that Visa, MasterCard, and their respective member banks violated the law by setting interchange fees and then made and enforced rules that prohibited merchants from steering customers to other payment methods, resulting in merchants paying excessive fees to accept Visa and MasterCard cards.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed approval of the settlement and returned the case to the District Court on June 30, 2016. Litigation is ongoing. No claim forms are available at this time, and no claim-filing deadline exists. If another settlement is reached, no-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during any claims-filing period. No one is required to sign up with any third-party service in order to participate in any settlement. For additional information regarding the status of the litigation, interested persons may visit www.paymentcardsettlement.com, the Court-approved website for this case.