Our antitrust team represents clients in complex litigation and arbitration in state and federal courts throughout the United States to ensure fair competition and integrity in the marketplace. Our lawyers bring deep knowledge of antitrust law to bear in these cases, with particular skill in cases against drug companies that collude to keep drug prices high. We hold companies accountable, helping clients achieve precedent-setting outcomes in complex lawsuits in matters involving price fixing, generic drug suppression, bid rigging, and related anti-competitive practices.
Our lawyers have been named by the courts as lead or co-lead counsel in antitrust cases with national significance. Judges recognize us for our collaborative approach and our deep knowledge of federal procedure. Client surveys also reflect high praise for our professional and responsive approach to cases large and small.
Girard Sharp lawyers were appointed co-lead counsel in a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the prescription drug Lidoderm, who alleged that two drug companies, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Pharma, unlawfully paid a third, Watson Pharmaceuticals, to delay the launch of less expensive generic Lidocaine patches. Our lawyers achieved a $104.75 million settlement on the eve of trial.
We serve as interim co-lead class counsel in In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.). The case alleges Californians overpaid at the pump because oil companies engaged in manipulative spot-market trading to maintain high prices after a refinery explosion caused a supply disruption.
Dena Sharp serves as court-appointed co-lead counsel in a digital advertising monopoly class action against Google. Girard Sharp was the first law firm to file a class action complaint against Google for monopolizing digital display advertising services, several months before the U.S. Department of Justice and a group of state attorneys general sued Google for monopolization. We now represent online advertisers in the pending multidistrict litigation entitled In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 21-MD-3010 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).
Our antitrust team also served as court-appointed co-lead counsel in a case alleging that Allergan used fraudulent patents and baseless citizen petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to preserve its monopoly for Restasis, a dry-eye medication, by keeping generic versions off the market. The case settled for $30 million.
We play a central role in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation, a massive nationwide case alleging that dozens of the world’s largest drug makers conspired to raise prices and prevent competition through the pharmaceutical industry since at least 2011. The firm serves as a member of the End-Payer Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.
Our antitrust team served on the Executive Committee in pay-for-delay litigation accusing Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. of keeping generic Aggrenox off the market. The case settled for $54 million.
We also excel at cases related to consumer electronics
Our firm plays a key role in antitrust litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing electronics companies worldwide of conspiring to fix the prices of capacitors, which are used in almost every electronic device.
We served as liaison counsel in the landmark “TFT-LCDs” litigation against several of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers in which plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturers had conspired to fix prices on the thin, flat-panel LCD displays. The litigation resulted in more than $400 million in settlements.
In an antitrust action in the Superior Court of California, we delivered nearly $160 million in settlements on behalf of individuals and businesses who alleged that natural gas companies around San Diego unlawfully drove up prices through prearranged “wash trades” (simultaneously purchasing and selling the same amount of natural gas at the same price) and reported false price and volume information to trade publications.
Girard Sharp LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of New York Community Bancorp (NYCB) stockholders who have sustained recent losses due to recent reports regarding the company’s business operations and prospects.
Girard Sharp is investigating reports of a data breach that may have exposed the personal information of LoanCare LLC customers.
Girard Sharp LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of Agridime LLC investors.
Girard Sharp serves as co-lead counsel in this indirect purchaser antitrust class action alleging suppression of competition in the market for generic drugs. The firm helped secure a $30 million settlement, which is pending final approval, for the certified end-payer class.