Past Cases

Cases in which Mr. Grabar and the firm have worked in an integral role include:

  • In re Steel Antitrust Litig., 08-cv-5214 (N.D. Ill.).
    An antitrust action alleging market allocation and supply restriction of steel by the world’s major manufacturers of steel with recoveries exceeding $163 million.
    An antitrust class action alleging market allocation and supply restriction of steel by the world’s major manufacturers of steel including ArcelorMittal S.A., ArcelorMittal USA, LLC, Nucor Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, AK Steel Holding Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Swedish Steel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company (“Defendants”).These steel manufacturers were sued by several businesses who purchased Steel Products and who alleged violations of antitrust law for unlawfully restricting production output and therefore fixing the prices for Steel Products sold for delivery in the United States between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007.In 2015, the Court certified the class action for the purpose of determining whether Defendants engaged in a conspiracy.

    Settlements exceeded $194 million.

  • In re EPDM Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1542 (D. Conn.).
    An antitrust action alleging price-fixing of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer with recoveries exceeding $100 million.
  • In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 05-CV-666 (E.D. Pa).
    An antitrust action alleging price-fixing of Hydrogen Peroxide with recoveries exceeding $97 million.
    An antitrust class action alleging price-fixing of Hydrogen Peroxide. Direct purchasers of hydrogen peroxide brought a class action suit against chemical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturers had violated 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a conspiracy in restraint of trade involving fixing of prices for hydrogen peroxide and related chemical products during the class period of January 1, 1994–January 5, 2005.Hydrogen peroxide is used most prominently as a bleach in the pulp and paper industry with smaller amounts appearing in chemicals and laundry products, environmental applications, textiles, and electronics.After the United States Department of Justice and the European Commission began investigating possible violations of the antitrust laws in the hydrogen peroxide industry, plaintiffs filed class action complaints against producers of hydrogen peroxide and persalts under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, alleging a conspiracy in restraint of trade violating § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

    The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during an eleven-year class period (January 1, 1994–January 5, 2005) defendants (1) communicated about prices they would charge, (2) agreed to charge prices at certain levels, (3) exchanged information on prices and sales volume, (4) allocated markets and customers, (5) agreed to reduce production capacity, (6) monitored each other, and (7) sold hydrogen peroxide at agreed prices.

    Settlements exceeded $97 million.

  • Alco Industries, Inc. v. DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, 1:04 CV 00588 (D.D.C.).
    An antitrust action alleging price-fixing of Polychloroprene Rubber with recoveries exceeding $36 million.
    An antitrust class action alleging price-fixing of Polychloroprene Rubber (“PCP”) by defendant DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC (“DDE”) and its co-conspirators during the Class Period of January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003.Polychloroprene is used primarily for gaskets, cable jackets, tubing, seals, O-rings, tire-sidewalls, gasoline hoses and weather-resistant products such as wet suits and orthopedic braces. It is also used as a base resin in adhesives, electrical insulations and coatings.The settlement with DDE was $36 million.
  • In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litig., 3:05-MD-01642 (D. Conn.).
    An antitrust action alleging price-fixing of Polychloroprene Rubber with recoveries exceeding $15 million.
    An antitrust class action alleging price-fixing of Polychloroprene Rubber (“PCP”) by DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC (“DDE”) along with defendants, Bayer, Lanxess, Polimeri and Sydial during the Class Period of January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003.Polychloroprene is used primarily for gaskets, cable jackets, tubing, seals, O-rings, tire-sidewalls, gasoline hoses and weather-resistant products such as wet suits and orthopedic braces. It is also used as a base resin in adhesives, electrical insulations and coatings.Settlements exceeded $15 million.
  • In re Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) Antitrust Litig., 2:06-MD-01768 (E.D. Pa.)
    (recoveries exceeding $15 million).
    An antitrust class action brought on behalf of all individuals and entities who, within the United States purchased Methyl Methacrylate (“MMA”) or Polymethyl Methacrylate (“PMMA”) directly from a manufacturer defendant during the Class Period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2003.Methyl methacrylate is a monomer that’s also known as methacrylic acid, methyl ester. It is key building block for acrylic-based polymers, MMA has applications that include safety glazing, exterior paints, vinyl impact modifiers, adhesives, illuminated light displays, and more.Settlement recoveries exceeded $15 million.
  • In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litig., 99-CV-431 (AMW) (D.N.J.)
    (recoveries exceeding $17 million).
    An antitrust class action in which plaintiffs alleged that MBUSA, the national distributor of Mercedes-Benz automobiles, along with twenty-four of its dealers in the New York Region and the accounting firm Sheft Kahn Co., LLP engaged in a per se unlawful price-fixing conspiracy to limit discounting of new Mercedes automobiles sold or leased in the New York Region between February 1992 and August 1999. The New York Region includes dealers in New York City as well as suburban New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.As alleged, the conspiracy had two central aspects. The first involved the Sheft Kahn Group, consisting of New York Region dealers, including MBM, which: 1) created detailed reports of members' gross profits and pricing-related information, which were widely shared and discussed among the allegedly competing members, and 2) held meetings, attended by MBM, and which attendance by other dealers was encouraged and directed by MBUSA, involving extensive pricing-related discussions of historical and anticipated gross profits among supposed competitors, which allowed the coconspirators to determine price-levels at which new Mercedes-Benz vehicles were sold or leased.The second aspect involved MBUSA's communications and directives to its New York Region dealers, which included discussions regarding "gross profit per vehicle" by MBUSA officials directly with New York Region dealers during regular, in-person visits to the dealers. These communications were an essential means of implementing, monitoring, and enforcing compliance with defendants' overall conspiracy of maintaining the price of new Mercedes-Benz vehicles at artificially inflated levels. The overall goal was to insure that all New York Region dealers were selling vehicles at as close to list price as possible in order to meet MBUSA's and the dealers' mutual 10% retained gross profit target and eliminate competition among New York Region dealers.

    Settlement recoveries exceeded $17 million.

  • In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litig., 03-CV-1496 (N.D. Cal.)
    (recoveries exceeding $250 million).An antitrust class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers of three types of chemicals used to make various rubber products (including tires and automotive parts) alleging price fixing in the United States and elsewhere by defendants Akzo-Flexsys, Bayer, and Crompton.The case was brought on behalf of a class of all persons which purchased rubber chemicals in the United States directly from any of the defendants, or any present or former parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time during the period May 1, 1995 through December 31, 2001.

    The settlements recovered for the benefit of the direct purchasers of rubber chemicals totaled $320 million.

  • Dastgir v. McMahon, et al., Case No. 2021-0513-LWW (Del. Ch.)The complaint alleged that WWE hid the fact that its media rights deal with Orbit Showtime Network (“OSN”) in the Middle East-North Africa, or MENA, region had ended early. It was touted, and the market believed, that the OSN Agreement with the Company was worth millions of dollars a year to WWE.

    Specifically, on February 7, 2019, the Company announced its fourth-quarter and full-year 2018 financial results and issued a press release that the Company expected to achieve revenue of approximately $1.0 billion. The Company informed investors that this financial outlook depended on the Company’s ability to renew a number of expiring media-rights agreements, including in the Middle East.

    Unbeknownst to the public, due to financial troubles at OSN and a change in its strategic direction, OSN privately informed WWE in November 2018 that it intended to cancel the OSN Agreement and exit sports broadcasting altogether. Carlo Nohra, Vice President and General Manager of WWE—Middle East, would later reveal that OSN had been delinquent in making certain payments to WWE for several months during 2018. Thus, it is unlikely that the Company was surprised by OSN’s termination request.

    Between November 2018 and December 18, 2018, WWE and OSN negotiated a termination and settlement agreement to formally end the OSN Agreement effective March 31, 2019—nine months before its original expiration date. The foregoing was confirmed by Andrew Warkman, Vice President and General Manager, WWE UK & Ireland.

    For several months after learning that OSN intended to cancel its agreement early, the Company withheld this critical information from shareholders. WWE only revealed the truth about the OSN Agreement on July 25, 2019—eight months after OSN’s notification to WWE and four months after the agreement’s termination date. However, the Company falsely reported that a replacement media rights agreement would soon be forthcoming with an entity controlled by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Company also assured the market that a new deal would get done “very soon,” which they claimed would allow the Company to meet its full-year 2019 guidance. But no such deal was near. As the Company eventually disclosed in its 2019 Form 10-K, filed on February 7, 2020, “In certain places, notably India and the Middle East, agreements that were expected to be completed have not been signed to date.

    These revelations caused the price of the shares to drop and led purchasers of WWE stock to file multiple lawsuits against the Company and certain of its executives for violating multiple provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including the Securities Action. In addition to the costs of defending, and potential class wide liability in, the Securities Action, the wrongful conduct described herein has also exposed the Company to massive reputational harm and loss of goodwill.

    The case reached a Settlement that included WWE implementing Modified Corporate Governance and Oversight Functions, that address the specific issues raised in the litigation, for a period of at least seven years. Mem. of Law in Support of Pls.’ Mot. for Final Approval of Settlement at 7-8, ECF No. 111-1 (Nov. 17, 2021) (“Pls.’ Mem.”). In addition, under the proposed Settlement, WWE agrees to adopt the Amended and Restated Insider Trading Policy (“Insider Trading Policy”), which, among other things, prohibits trading by directors, officers, or employees while they are in possession of nonpublic information and also prohibits the sharing of such material. Id. at 8. The Insider Trading Policy sets out preclearance requirements for transactions involving WWE’s securities by any person with a title of Executive Vice President or higher and also details penalties for noncompliance. Id. at 8-9. The Settlement likewise requires WWE to maintain the Insider Trading Policy for a period of at least seven years from the date of implementation. Id. at 9. The Settlement also provided $3.65 million in fees.

  • 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.”

    Google’s parent Alphabet Inc. pledged $310 million to expand diversity efforts and resolve shareholder litigation that alleged the company’s board failed to prevent sexual harassment and hid misconduct by executives.

    The settlement caped a controversy that shook the technology giant and reverberated across Silicon Valley. At the center of the lawsuit was a $90 million exit package for Google executive Andy Rubin, creator of the Android mobile operating system, who faced a sexual harassment investigation at the time.

    Thousands of Google employees staged a walkout in 2018 to protest the decision, prompting the company to change several workplace policies. A group of shareholders sued, alleging Google’s board and chief executive offer at the time, Larry Page, was aware of the allegations against Rubin when they approved his pay package.

    Alphabet also announced the creation of an independent audit board to oversee issues of harassment. After the employee walkout, Google ended mandatory arbitration for employees including to other units beyond Google, such as Waymo and Verily.