Gibbs & Bruns lawyers have a long tenure of handling complex antitrust matters for a variety of clients. These cases have involved allegations of predatory pricing, price fixing, bid rigging, bundling, and other such matters.
In Re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation
We represent the Federal National Mortgage Association in litigation involving the suppression of Libor. Fannie Mae brought claims against major financial institutions, including Bank of America, Credit Suisse, and others. Fannie Mae has secured significant, confidential settlements with four defendants. Fannie Mae continues to pursue claims against its remaining defendants.
Motor Vehicle Software Corp. v. CDK Global Inc. et al.
Various individual and putative class plaintiffs have asserted claims federal and state antitrust statutes against The Reynolds & Reynolds Company (“Reynolds”) and one of Reynolds’ dealer management system competitors (“CDK”). Reynolds has filed counterclaims against at least one Plaintiff for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other federal and state laws. Gibbs & Bruns is lead trial counsel for Reynolds.
In early proceedings, prior to the consolidation of the MDL, Reynolds successfully obtained dismissal of Sherman Act Section 2 claims in one matter then pending in the Central District of California (Fisher, J.), and successfully appealed the entry of an injunction in another pending in the Western District of Wisconsin, resulting in a favorable ruling for Reynolds from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the case was first filed, Gibbs & Bruns has obtained favorable settlements on behalf of its client with all but one of the plaintiffs. With respect to the remaining plaintiff, MVSC, in July 2023 Gibbs & Bruns’ client obtained a favorable ruling on its summary judgment motion, resulting in a reduction to the clients’ damages exposure of more than half. The case is expected to be remanded to Judge Fisher in the Central District of California for trial on the remaining issues.
The Reynolds & Reynolds Company v. Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc.
We represented Reynolds & Reynolds, a major provider of automotive dealership management systems, in federal litigation involving claims of copyright infringement, complex antitrust issues, tortious interference with contracts and other issues. The firm successfully moved to dismiss the antitrust and other counterclaims alleged against its client and the case later settled on favorable terms.
First American Title Company, LLC, et al. v. Title Data, Inc., et al.
We represented Title Data, Inc., a Texas title plant, in a case filed by First American Title Company, LLC. First American accused Title Data of anticompetitive and monopolistic conduct and sought to invalidate certain provisions of its agreements with Title Data as unconscionable, unenforceable, and against public policy. This matter settled favorably on confidential terms.
EcoProduct Solutions, L.P. vs. Tetra Technologies, Inc.
We represented the plaintiff in an antitrust lawsuit alleging predatory pricing, under the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act, with respect to calcium chloride sales in 14 U.S. states. After the defendant’s motion to dismiss our client’s claims was denied by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the case settled favorably.
Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service Corp. International et al.
We represented the plaintiff in a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging an illegal group boycott under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, with respect to the sale of funeral caskets in all 50 states. The case settled favorably on the eve of trial.
BMC Software, Inc. v. Peregrine Bridge Transfer Corp., et al.
We represented Defendant NEON Systems, Inc. and several other John J. Moores-affiliated companies. Plaintiff BMC claimed damages exceeding $200 million resulting from Defendants’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants counterclaimed alleging antitrust violations. After denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Defendants’ counterclaims, the case settled favorably.
Brown & Root
We represented various employees of Brown & Root in connection with allegations of price fixing and bid rigging.
In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation
We represented various employees of paper companies in connection with claims of price fixing in the corrugated container industry.
Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof
We were defense counsel for Saipem S.p.A., a major Italian marine contractor, in an international antitrust action. In the trial court, we obtained the dismissal of the antitrust claims by a Norwegian oil corporation for an alleged market allocation conspiracy that supposedly inflated the price of heavy lift barge services in the North Sea. On appeal, we obtained affirmance of the dismissal. See: Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2001). The case was cited favorably by the United States Supreme Court in a subsequent case limiting the extra-territorial reach of American antitrust laws.
Burrow v. Guardian Savings
We successfully defended Guardian Savings against claims of tying in connection with extensions of credit.
Handy Andy v. HEB
We represented Plaintiffs in the prosecution of predatory pricing claims against HEB Grocery Stores. The case settled favorably.
Pasadena Bayshore Radiology
We represented Defendant in the defense of claims that physicians were being excluded from a hospital as a consequence of an attempted monopolization.
Transamerican v. Valero
We represented Defendant Valero in a case alleging price fixing for natural gas in South Texas.
United States ex rel. Wright v. AGIP Petroleum, et al.
We represented Defendant Union Oil Company of California, now part of Chevron Corp., in a False Claims Act suit alleging that, from 1986 through 2005, virtually every major energy company in the U.S. underpaid tens of billions of dollars in royalties on natural gas produced from federal lands located onshore and offshore nationwide. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants used a number of techniques, e.g., affiliate pricing, unlawful deductions and reporting processed gas as unprocessed gas, to conceal, decrease or avoid their royalty obligations to the government. Defendants obtained the dismissal of Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims. The case settled favorably for our client.