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.