|
|
|
Selected Representations |
Business Equipment.
The Firm was one of the very first to seek class
action relief under the antitrust laws permitting the
independent, lower-cost service of technologically
advanced business and telecommunication equipment. R&D
Business Systems, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation (E.D. Tex.).
Here the Firm represented national classes of businesses
and other customers purchasing copier 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. The National Office Machine Dealers Association
partially funded client costs.
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.
In 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. That matter settled during trial for $3.5
million. Searcy et al. v. Philips Electronics, N.V. et
al (E.D. Tex.).
|
Telecommunications.
In litigation relating to the service of Private Branch
Exchange (or PBX) equipment, the Firm represents several
clients, including MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.,
before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Telcomm Technical Services, Inc. et
al. v. Siemens Rolm Corporation . When the Federal
Circuit’s decision is handed down this spring or summer,
this case could be one of the most significant federal
precedents to address fully the extent to which a
copyright holder is absolutely protected from antitrust
liability when its alleged conduct encompasses not only
a refusal to provide access to copyrighted software, but
exclusionary intent and conduct not implicating
intellectual property rights.
The Firm represented the clients at trial below in the
United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia as to both antitrust and intellectual
property claims.
|
Insurance. The
Firm has brought the leading price fixing case against
the four largest insurance carriers in America,
including State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and
Allstate Insurance Co. Gilchrist et al. v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. et al. (N.D. Fla.) Berry
& Leftwich successfully demonstrated to the District
Court for the Northern District of Florida that the
United States McCarran-Ferguson Act does not immunize
these carriers from antitrust price fixing and boycott
liability when they allegedly conspire to provide their
policyholders inferior parts to repair automobiles, and
cause premiums paid by policyholders to exceed
competitive levels for the actual repair services
provided.
The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was
granted in November, 2002, and the defendants have filed
a motion requesting immediate appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. This class action
could involve damage claims for as many as 70 million
consumers and businesses around the country.
|
High Technology
Hospital Equipment. The Firm represented hospitals
and other end users of GE service for CT and MRI imaging
equipment against the General Electric Company.
Southeast Georgia Regional Medical Center v. General
Electric Company (S.D. Ga.). The hospitals and clinics
alleged that GE monopolized service for this imaging
equipment by denying independent service providers
access to GE diagnostic software. In part, GE raised
intellectual property defenses. While the motion for
class certification was pending, GE settled for $17
million in antitrust overcharge payments to class
members.
|
Oil. In Mark
Petroleum, Inc. v. Lester Smith et al. (S.D. Tex.) Mr.
Leftwich on behalf of the Firm represented international
oil investors in a fraud and RICO action against Texas
oil development companies concerning Russian oil fields
on Sakahlin Island. The Firm successfully appealed the
dismissal of the client’s claims at the Fifth Circuit
and a settlement was reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
