|
|
|
Berry
& Leftwich has a nationwide practice specializing in antitrust,
commercial, and technology litigation, including class actions.
These cases have spanned a wide range of economic sectors and
addressed important issues, such as the interaction between
intellectual property and competition law. Below are examples
of current and former cases the Firm has litigated.
Selected Representations |
Desktop
Software. Lingo et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (Cal.
Super. Ct , San Francisco) (Alvarado, J.). Berry &
Leftwich in 1999 brought the first private action in the
country for damages against Microsoft under California's
unfair competition and antitrust laws, stemming from
Microsoft’s alleged monopolization of the markets in
California for operating system and office suite
software. The Firm represented classes of indirect
purchasers of such software, alleging overcharges of
more than $3 Billion. Lingo was designated the lead
case in the consolidated California class actions
against Microsoft, and the Firm was selected to serve on
the Executive Committee established by the Court to
manage the litigation.
In January 2003, less than one month before trial,
Microsoft agreed to settle this matter, by giving as
many as 13 million California businesses and consumers
who purchased Microsoft operating system and application
software a total of $1.1 billion in vouchers which can
be used to buy desktop computer hardware or software
from any vendor, including Microsoft's rivals. It is
estimated that 80% of the class members who will share
the recovery, the largest settlement in California
history, are California businesses. The majority of any
unclaimed settlement funds will be paid to the
California Department of Education for use in purchasing
software, hardware, training, or service from the vendor
of its choice to benefit poor schools in the state. The
Lingo settlement was also used as template for
settlements in other state cases against Microsoft.
On appeal by a single class member, the California Court
of Appeals and the California Supreme Court affirmed the
Lingo settlement. It is expected that the settlement
will be implemented in the Fall of 2006.
|
Consumer Products.
(Transparent Tape) In Bradburn Parent Teacher Store,
Inc., et al. v. 3M Company (E.D. Pa.) (Padova, J.),
Berry & Leftwich represents a class of businesses that
purchased transparent tape from 3M Company in an
antitrust case alleging that 3M has unlawfully
maintained a monopoly over the sale of such tape in the
United States. The Firm obtained favorable rulings
certifying the class and limiting 3M’s ability to
challenge some liability elements at trial, and an
expert damage report estimating overcharges to class
members exceeding $90 million had been submitted. The
parties reached a settlement in principle resolving the
class claims less than 30 days before trial was set to
begin. Settlement approval proceedings are expected to
be conducted in the Fall of 2006.
Consumer Products. (Auto Insurance) In Perez,
et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., et al.
(N.D. Cal.), the Firm represents auto insurance
policyholders alleging a conspiracy and unfair
competition by some of the largest auto insurers in
California. This case includes allegations that the
defendants conspire to provide their policyholders
inferior “crash parts” and cause premiums paid by
policyholders to exceed competitive levels for the
quality of repair services provided.
Consumer Products. (Alder Lumber) Morelock
Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Company (D. Or.) (Panner,
J.). The Firm represents a class of direct purchasers
of alder lumber from Weyerhaeuser alleging that
Weyerhaeuser’s monopolization of the alder sawlog market
has allowed it to raise prices for alder lumber above
competitive levels. The matter has been stayed pending
the outcome of an appeal in a related matter to the
United States Supreme Court.
|
Biotechnology.
American Seed Company, Inc., et al. v. Monsanto Company,
et al. (D. Del.) (Robinson, J.) The Firm’s clients seek
to represent four national classes of direct purchasers
of biotechnological corn seed from Monsanto and its
controlled seed companies. The plaintiffs include
independent seed retailers and farmers who purchase corn
seed from the defendants that contains traits to make
the seed tolerant of the glyphosate herbicide, resistant
to the European Corn Borer, and/or resistant to root
worm (including purchasers of “stacked” traits). The
federal complaint raises claims under the Sherman Act
that Monsanto and its co-defendants have monopolized the
markets for such corn seed and overcharged purchasers as
a result. The Firm has also filed separate complaints
raising similar claims on behalf of Iowa and Minnesota
farmers and seed retailers who purchased such seeds from
Monsanto, its co-defendants, or its independent
distributors. Those cases were consolidated with the
American Seed Company case by Judge Robinson in the
District of Delaware. Souhrada, et al. v. Monsanto
Company, et al.; Duxbury, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et
al. (D. Del.) Class certification discovery and
briefing is nearing completion.
|
Independent Service.
(High Volume Copier/Printer Service) The Firm was one of
the first to seek class action relief under the
antitrust laws permitting the independent, lower-cost
service of technologically advanced business and
telecommunication equipment. In R&D Business Systems,
Inc. v. Xerox Corporation (E.D. Tex.), the Firm
represented national classes of businesses and other
customers purchasing high volume copier and printer
service, as well as independent service organizations,
in antitrust litigation against Xerox Corporation. Class
and lost-profit claims were settled for in excess of
$225 million.
Independent Service. (Medical Equipment Service)
Southeast Georgia Regional Medical Center v. General
Electric Company (S.D. Ga.). The Firm represented
hospitals and other end users of GE service for CT and
MRI imaging equipment against the General Electric
Company. The hospitals and clinics alleged that GE
monopolized service for this imaging equipment by
denying independent service providers access to GE
diagnostic software. While the motion for class
certification was pending, GE agreed to pay $17 million
to class members, and to make changes to its software
licensing policies.
|
Distributor Claims.
In Office Outfitters, Inc. et al. v. The General
Electric Company p.l.c. et al. (E.D. Tex.) Mr. Leftwich
lead the Firm on behalf of classes of printing equipment
distributors alleging fraud, RICO, antitrust and
contract claims against A.B. Dick and its former parent
company, including GE, p.l.c. (now called Marconi, p.l.c.)
headquartered in London, England. Defendants settled the
claims for $3 million to be paid to class members.
Distributor Claims. Hayday, Inc. et al. v. North
American Philips Corp., et al. (E.D. Tex.) the Firm
represented former dealers in Philips office automation
equipment alleging fraud and RICO claims against North
American Philips and its Dutch parent, Philips
Electronics, N.V. The matter settled just prior to jury
selection for $2.5 million. In a related action, the
Firm represented additional Philips dealers in a second
round of fraud and RICO litigation. The Firm’s client
also represented the United States Department of Justice
in claims under the False Claims Act. That matter
settled during trial for $3.5 million. Searcy et al. v.
Philips Electronics, N.V. et al (E.D. Tex.).
|
|
Additional cases &
descriptions |
|
|
To learn more about
the experience of the Firm's partners, select Partner Profiles. |
|
|
|
|
