Current Cases

Some of the cases that Grabar Law Office is presently working on include:

  • In Re: Interior Molded Doors Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 3:18-cv-00850 (E.D.VA.)
    As alleged in the Complaint, Masonite Corp. and Jeld-Wen, Inc. conspired to fix the prices of interior molded doors (closet and bathroom doors) from at least October 24, 2012 through the present. Interior molded doors are a type of interior door made by sandwiching a wood frame and a hollow or solid core between two door skins composed of a high-density fibrous mat and formed into a raised panel design. The interior molded door is the most popular type of interior door in North America.It is alleged that between 2001 and 2012, Jeld-Wen and Masonite began to eliminate competition by acquiring a number of smaller interior door manufacturers. Additionally, each of the companies sought to eliminate competition by stopping their long-standing practice of supplying door skins to smaller interior door manufacturers. It is alleged that these anticompetitive actions have allowed each company to charge supra-competitive prices for interior molded doors.
  • In re: Deutsche Bank Spoofing Litigation, 1:20-cv-03638 (N.D.Ill.) 
    This action arises from Deutsche Bank’s unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury Futures contracts and options on Treasury Futures contracts (“Treasury Futures”) and Eurodollar Futures contracts and options on Eurodollar Futures contracts (“Eurodollar Futures”) that trade on United States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”), during the period from at least January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the “Class Period”) in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. (the “CEA”), and the common law.
  • Leone, et. al. v. Olympus Corporation of the Americas, et al. 1:20-cv-03638 (E.D. PA.)
    As alleged in this action, Participants of the Olympus Corporation of the Americas Pension Plan bring this action under 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(2) and (3) on behalf of the Plan against Defendants Olympus Corporation of the Americas (“Olympus”), the Benefits Administrative Committee of Olympus (the “Committee”), and John Does 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants”), for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§1001–1461 (“ERISA”).
  • In re Robinhood Outage Litigation, 3:20-cv-01626, (N.D. Cal.) 
    As alleged in the Complaint, Robinhood’s trading systems completely crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020, and experienced a total outage of its operating systems. Throughout the entire trading day, Robinhood’s customers were prevented from making any securities trades through the firm’s website, app, or call center.
    Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of Robinhood customers who were denied access to their Robinhood trading accounts during the Outage and for the many, including herself, who suffered losses in their Robinhood trading accounts specifically as a result of their inability to place any securities or options trades during the Outage. Plaintiffs assert putative class action claims generally including breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of California consumer protection laws, on behalf of all other Robinhood customers who are similarly situated.
  • In Re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, 2:18-mc-01001 (W.D.PA.)
    A putative class action alleging that the top producers of methyl diphenyl isocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI) agreed among themselves to fix prices by limiting supply from January 1, 2016 to the present. MDIs and TDIs are precursor ingredients for the manufacture of polyurethane foams, thermoplastic polyurethanes and thermoset urethanes. Flexible polyurethane foam is used in products such as mattresses, upholstered furniture and car seats. Rigid polyurethane foam is used mostly as an efficient insulating material for buildings and refrigeration appliances. Thermoplastic polyurethanes are used in diverse product groups such as clothing, mobile electronic devices and sports equipment. The action arises out of an alleged conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws by manufacturers and sellers of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (“MDI”) and toluene diisocyanate (“TDI”) who sold to entities in the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
  • Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC v. Archer Daniels Midland Company., 2:20cv02212 (C.D.Ill.).
    An antitrust class action in which it is alleged that between November 1, 2017 and September 4, 2019 (“Class Period”), Defendant ADM, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2 (“Sherman Act”), intentionally acted uneconomically to divert and ship large supplies of ethanol into the Argo Terminal market, flood Argo with ethanol supplies, and to reduce aggressively its offers and hit bids in the Argo sales market to become a dominant seller of ethanol at Argo. Through this and other uneconomic and unlawful conduct, ADM acquired and maintained the market power to depress and ADM did depress prices in the Argo market and Formula Prices. The case is brought on behalf of “All Persons who, after November 1, 2017, made First Level Sales of ethanol in the Argo market or pursuant to a First Level Sales Contract in which the price term is expressly based, in whole or in part, on a Chicago Benchmark Price, Chicago OPIS Price, or a Chicago Ethanol Derivatives Price. This includes price terms which are based on an average, a mean, or another formula using one or more of the foregoing prices."
  • In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, 2:16-MD-2724-CMR (E.D.PA.).
    An antitrust class action alleging that generic drug manufacturers conspired to fix and raise prices for numerous generic drugs, forcing consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for the medications they rely on, many of which have seen price increases of over %1000 in just the last few years, without any underlying shortage in raw material or increase in demand.
  • In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 2:13-CV-20000 (N.D. Ala.).
    An antitrust class action filed on behalf of Blue Cross and Blue Shield subscribers in several states who purchased individual and small group full-service commercial health insurance which seeks to enjoin the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees from engaging in a continuing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act. The case alleges, since at least 2008 through the present, the Defendants have engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to establish and maintain monopoly power in thirty-eight states through market allocation agreements. The action also seeks to recover damages suffered by subscribers from inflated premiums that have been charged to them as a result of the conspiracy.
  • In re Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, l:19-cv-00385 (W.D.N.Y.).
    An antitrust class action alleging price-fixing by the major manufacturers of sodium hydroxide – a/k/a Caustic Soda.
  • In Re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-198-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
    An antitrust class action alleging price-fixing by the major manufactures of electronic component parts known as inductors.
  • In Re: FedLoan Student Loan Servicing Litig., 18-md-02833 (E.D.Pa.).
    A class action against PHEAA for illegally extending student loan payoff durations to generate extra servicing fees and interest payments.
  • In Re: Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 1:17-md-02800-TXT (N.D.GA).
    A consumer class action regarding the cyberattack on Equifax's systems as announced in September 2017. The attackers gained unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. This information included people’s names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances driver’s license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information. Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Plaintiffs claim that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers’ personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach.
  • In Re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, 20-cv-01319 JRT-HB (D. Minn.)This class action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persons and entities who purchased beef (boxed and case-ready meat that has been processed from fed cattle) in the United States directly from one or more of the Defendant meat processing and packing companies (defined below) from at least January 1, 2015, until present (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to constrain beef supplies in the United States, thereby artificially inflating domestic beef prices paid by direct purchasers. As a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the other class members suffered antitrust injury for which Plaintiffs seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

    Defendants are the world’s largest meat processing and packing companies, known in the industry as meatpackers or packers. In 2018, the operating company Defendants (Tyson Fresh, CMS, Swift/Packerland, and National Beef) (collectively “Operating Defendants”) — sold approximately 80 percent of the more than 25 million pounds of fresh and frozen beef supplied to the U.S. market. Collectively, they controlled approximately 81–85 percent of the domestic cattle processed (or slaughtered) in the market throughout the Class Period. The next largest meatpacker had only a 2–3 percent market share.

    It is alleged that since at least the start of 2015, Defendants have exploited their market power in this highly concentrated market by conspiring to limit the supply, and fix the prices, of beef sold to Plaintiffs and class members in the U.S. wholesale market. The principal, but not exclusive, means Defendants have used to effectuate their conspiracy is a scheme to artificially constrain the supply of beef entering the domestic supply chain. Defendants’ collusive restriction of the beef supply has had the intended effect of artificially inflating beef prices. It is alleged that as a result, Plaintiffs and class members paid higher prices than they would have paid in a competitive market.

    Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) launched investigations into whether Defendants fixed beef prices in the United States. On June 4, 2020, news sources reported, and Plaintiffs confirmed, that DOJ’s Antitrust Division sent civil investigative demands to Defendants Tyson Foods, JBS SA, Cargill, Inc., and to National Beef Inc. (a company related to Defendant National Beef, Inc. seeking information about their pricing practices dating back to January 2015.

    On March 12, 2020, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that the USDA had begun an investigation into suspiciously high beef prices. Secretary Perdue expressed serious concern that meatpackers were paying lower prices for live cattle without passing the cost savings on to Plaintiffs and other beef purchasers. As he explained, the difference between prices for live cattle and prices for wholesale beef was “historically high.”

    It is alleged that Defendants colluded during the Class Period to reduce supplies of beef in tandem thereby raising and fixing beef prices at levels higher than prices that would have prevailed had the beef market been competitive. As a direct result, Plaintiffs and class members suffered antitrust injury by paying illegally inflated prices for beef they purchased from Defendants.

    The case has been brought on behalf of a putative Class defined as:

    All persons and entities who purchased beef directly from any of the Defendants, or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates, for use or delivery in the United States from January 1, 2015 to present.

  • In Re Healthcare Services Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 2:20-cv-03426 WB (E.D. Pa.)A shareholder derivative action, in which the firm has been appointed Liaison Counsel, brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (“HCSG” or the “Company”) against the Company’s current CEO and CFO (“Individual Defendants”).

    According to the Complaint, HCSG’s CEO and CFO engaged in a long-term scheme to make it appear that the Company met or exceeded analysts’ consensus estimates for the Company’s earnings per share (“EPS), a key financial metric relied upon by investors as an indicator of a company’s profitability.

    As alleged in the Complaint, the Individual Defendants’ wrongful conduct constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Company and has forced HCSG to incur millions of dollars in costs related to the SEC investigation and the internal investigation, as well as costs incurred in defending the securities class action. In addition, the Individual Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duties has caused reputational harm to the Company and has exposed HCSG to potential sanctions and penalties by the SEC.