FT has achieved substantial settlements for plaintiffs in many cases. The following are current settlements and contain information that may be relevant to members of the settlement classes. Please review the cases below for more information.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Class action alleging antitrust violation by Blue Shield in the Michigan region. FT played a significant role in the litigation based on assignment of tasks by the lead counsel.
This case alleges major procedures of gypsum board (commonly known as drywall or sheet rock) agreed to fix prices and otherwise restrict competition on the gypsum board market. Our complaint (filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) seeks to press claims on behalf of indirect purchasers (i.e. ends users, or IPPs) of gypsum board, and names all but one of the major gypsum board manufacturers as defendants. We allege violations of the Federal Sherman Act, as well as multiple state unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and seek both injunctive and monetary relief. FT is one of three co – lead counsel on behalf of the indirect purchasers (IPPs) in this case, and is playing a significant role in all phases of the case.
Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co – conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of lithium ion batteries (i.e. batteries that are rechargeable and uses lithium ion technology) for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those batteries. FT is involved in the case brought by entities purchasing directly from Defendants. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co – conspirators allegedly violated the antitrust laws by agreeing to fix prices and restrict output of lithium batteries by, among other things, face – to – face meetings and other communications, customer allocation, and the use of trade associations. Certain of the defendants have pled guilty to this conduct in separate criminal proceedings. FT has assisted with discovery and document review in the past.
24 Hour Fitness Litigation
The complaint, filed in April 2016, allege that 24 Hour Fitness promised members who purchased prepaid membership contracts to its gym (generally 3 year commitments) that once the prepaid period expired, members would receive a fixed, annual renewal rate for as long as members wished to continue with 24 Hour Fitness. FT filed one of two cases in federal court in the Northern District of California. FT has done significant work in the case including participation in the mediation and the drafting and filing of the settlement documents for preliminary and final approval.