Some of the cases that Grabar Law Office is presently working on include:
- In Re. Alphabet Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 19-CV-341522, (Sup. Ct. Cal.)
A shareholder derivative action under 8 Del. C. § 220 to enforce Plaintiff’s statutory right to inspect certain books and records of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Inc. relating to meetings of Alphabet’s Board of Directors “during which allegations of sexual misconduct against Google employees were discussed” and “during which potential data breaches involving the unauthorized disclosure of Google product users’ personal data was discussed.”As alleged in the Complaint, “[t]here is a credible basis upon which it may be inferred that mismanagement, in the form of materially false and misleading statements by the Company and its officers and directors, may have occurred.”
- 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.