The Latest News & Investigations

Grabar Law Office has filed an action pursuant to 8 DEL. C. § 220 to enforce Plaintiff’s statutory right to inspect certain books and records of Defendant Micron Technology, Inc.

As alleged in the Complaint, prices for DRAM chips had been steadily declining for approximately three decades. However, in 2017, they increased approximately 47% with a significant decrease in the expected rate of volume growth of DRAM chips.

On December 26, 2017, Reuters published an article entitled "China regulator flags greater scrutiny on chips after price surge." the article stated "China's economic regulator is paying close attention to a recent surge in the price of mobile phone storage chips and could look into possible price fixing by the firms that make them," which included Micron.  The Company's 2018 10-K disclosed, exactly five month after the fact, "[o]n May 15, 2018, the Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation Market Regulation (‘SAMR’) notified Micron that it was investigating potential collusion among DRAM suppliers in China.”

The Company did not officially disclose the inspection, or raid on its offices until the 2018 10-K, which said “[o]n May 31, 2018, SAMR made unannounced visits to our sales offices in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen to seek certain information as part of its investigation. We are cooperating with SAMR in its investigation.”

The Company was aware no later than May 15, 2018, it was being investigated by SAMR for potential DRAM price-fixing in China but failed to inform investors of this material fact until October 15, 2018, precisely five months later. 

On November 19, 2018, the Financial Times published an article reporting SAMR had “found ‘massive evidence’ of anti-competitive behaviour” by Micron and that Micron had engaged in a price fixing conspiracy with Samsung and Hynix. The Financial Times article cited Kim Young-woo, an analyst at SK Securities, as saying China could impose fines of more than $2.5 billion on Micron “in the worst-case scenario” if the Company is found to have fixed prices.

The Company is subject to numerous antitrust class action complaints in the United States alleging it conspired with Samsung and Hynix from at least June 1, 2016 to February 1, 2018 to inflate artificially prices of DRAM sold to direct and indirect purchasers in this country.  It is further alleged that the Company issued numerous materially false and misleading statements about competition at the same time it was being investigated for anti-competitive activities.  Micron is now facing potential enormous liability from both the Chinese government’s investigation and the pending multiple antitrust and securities fraud actions. 

A public version of the Complaint can be viewed here: Micron Filed 220-complaint

A news article about the Complaint can be viewed here: Micron Investor Sues For Corporate Docs Over Price-Fixing - Law360

To learn more about this matter, contact us today!

Grabar Law Office has filed a putative class action alleging that the major manufacturers of Caustic Soda (also known as Sodium Hydroxide) agreed among themselves to limit capacity and coordinate price increases in order to artificially inflate prices of Caustic Soda in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the electrolysis of brine or salt water.  Caustic Soda is consumed by customers in a variety of industries, including paper, pulp and cellulose; chemical production; soaps and detergents; aluminum; food processing; water treatment; textiles; mineral oils; recycling; and pharmaceuticals.

The Defendant manufacturers are: Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation (d/b/a OxyChem), Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.  Defendants are estimated to control at least 90% of the domestic supply of Caustic Soda.

The case is Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC v. Olin Corp. et. al., 1:19-cv-00392 (W.D.N.Y.).

The filed complaint can be viewed here: Midwest Renewable Energy - Filed Complaint

If you would like to learn more about this matter, contact us today!

Grabar Law Office is investigating hearing loss suffered by U.S. military service members resulting from use of defective 3M Combat Arms Earplugs.

In a settlement in July 2018, the 3M corporation agreed to pay $9.1 million in a False Claims Act lawsuit to settle allegations that it knowingly supplied the United States military with defective earplugs. The lawsuit brought on behalf of the government alleged that the company covered up the fact that the dual-ended earplugs could slightly loosen, allowing hearing damage to occur and that thousands of service members were supplied the defective 3M Combat Arms Earplugs from 2003 to 2015.

A copy of the Complaint filed by the U.S. Government can be viewed here: US Government Complaint v 3M

What are 3M Combat Arms Earplugs?

Minneapolis-based 3M manufactured these dual-ended earplugs for hearing protection from close range firearms and other loud impact noises. Due to the defective design, the earplugs can slightly loosen and subtly move out of the ear canal just enough for the loud sounds to cause hearing damage. According to reports, 3M knew of these design defects, but knowingly sold them to the US military from 2003-2015.

What risks are associated with 3M Combat Arms Earplugs?

Service members and combat veterans have reported multiple side effects, including:

• Hearing loss
• Tinnitus, or ringing in the ears
• Permanent hearing damage
• Deafness

Were you issued 3M Combat Arms earplugs while in military service and are now suffering hearing damage or loss?

If so, filing a claim against 3M could help you recover compensation for:

• Pain and suffering
• Medical bills
• Past lost wages
• Future lost wages
• Permanent or temporary disability
• Punitive damages
• Loss of enjoyment of life

To learn more, please contact us at 267-507-6085 or jgrabar@grabarlaw.com for a free consultation.

Grabar Law Office has filed an action pursuant to 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, on October 25, 2018, in an article entitled “How Google Protected Andy Rubin, the ‘Father of Android,’” The New York Times reported online (the “NYT Article”) that Google paid Rubin approximately $90 million as part of a severance package, and delayed repayment of a $14 million loan to Rubin, to conceal allegations of sexual misconduct against Rubin.

On November 1, 2018, shortly after the NYT Article was published, more than 20,000 Google employees and contractors worldwide, approximately 20% of the Company’s total workforce, staged a walkout to protest “sexual harassment, misconduct, lack of transparency, and a non-inclusive workplace culture.”

Moreover, on October 8, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported in an article entitled “Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public” (the “WSJ Article”) that internal investigators at the Company discovered in March 2018 a glitch in the software for Google+, the Company’s social media site, which allowed outside developers potential access to private Google+ users profile data between 2015 and March 2018.

The WSJ Article stated that “[a] memo reviewed . . . prepared by Google’s legal and policy staff and shared with senior executives warned that disclosing the incident would likely trigger ‘immediate regulatory interest’ and invite comparisons to Facebook’s leak of user information to data firm Cambridge Analytica.” Moreover, Google LLC CEO and Board member “Pichai was briefed on the plan not to notify users after an internal committee had reached that decision.”

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.”

A public version of the Complaint can be viewed here: Alphabet Inc. 220 Complaint - Public Version

A news article about the Complaint can be viewed here: Alphabet Sued for Records Related to Data Breach, Alleged Sexual Misconduct at Google _ The Recorder

To learn more about this action, contact us today!

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.

A copy of the filed Complaint can be reviewed here: Doors Indirect Purchaser Complaint

If you purchased interior molded doors indirectly (from a distributor or retailer) in the following states, AZ, CA, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MI, MN, MS, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, WV or WI and you would like to learn more about this action, contact us today!

As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff brings this class action against Marriott International, Inc. (referred to herein as “Marriott” or “Defendant”), parent of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC (referred to herein as “Starwood”), for Starwood’s failure to secure and safeguard its customers’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) such as the passport information, customers’ names, mailing addresses, and other personal information, as well as credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data (“PCD”) (collectively, “Private Information”).  Starwood collected this information at the time customers registered on its website, checked-in to one of its hotels, used its loyalty program (the “Loyalty Program”), and/or used it at one of its dining or retail operations within its hotels.  Starwood also failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their Private Information had been stolen, as well as precisely what types of information were stolen.  When consumers provided information in their Starwood accounts or checked in to Starwood hotels, Starwood (now Marriott) electronically collected and stored this information, making it a treasure trove of useful information attractive to hackers who used the information to profit and cause damage, as was done here, to consumers.

Beginning in or around 2014 (and perhaps even earlier) and continuing through November 2018, hackers exploiting vulnerabilities in Starwood’s network accessed the guest reservation system at Starwood hotels and stole this data (the “Data Breach”).

Then, on November 30, 2018, Marriott acknowledged an investigation had determined that there was unauthorized access to the Starwood guest reservation database, which contained guest information relating to reservations at Starwood properties on or before September 10, 2018.

Marriott has not finished identifying duplicate information in the database, but believes it contains information on up to approximately 500 million guests who made a reservation at a Starwood property.  For approximately 327 million of these guests, the information includes some combination of name, mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest (“SPG”) account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation date, and communication preferences.  For some, the information also includes payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates.

The case is Gamburg v. Marriott International, Inc., 1:18-cv-17060 (D. N.J.).

A copy of the complaint can be viewed here: Gamburg v. Marriott - Data Breach Complaint

To learn more about this action, contact us today!

Mr. Grabar is honored to have been selected, once again for 2019, as one of Pennsylvania's Super Lawyers by Thompson Reuters' Super Lawyers publication. Each year, no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the Commonwealth are selected to receive this honor.​ Designation as a Super Lawyer is recognition that Mr. Grabar has distinguished himself with respect to his achievements as a practitioner and advocate in the eyes of the legal community in which he practices.

Grabar Law Office Files Shareholder Derivative Complaint Against Nominal Defendant Vuzix Corp. and its Officers and Directors.

As alleged in the complaint, in March of 2018, MOX Reports published a series of posts alleging that the Company unlawfully used certain stock promotion tactics to boost Vuzix’s share price in anticipation of a secondary public offering of its shares at $10 per share (the “MOX Reports Publication”).  The MOX Reports Publication claimed that Vuzix used an undisclosed stock promotion involving dozens of mainstream media outlets to artificially inflate the share price and volume, that one of the Company’s main products, Vuzix Blade, was little more than a “low tech mock-up” that did not actually function, and that one of the stock promoters Vuzix used had a substantial history of involvement in fraudulent stock promotion schemes.

Following this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.70 per share, or more than 22%, over the course of three trading sessions, to close on March 21, 2018 at $5.95.

As a result, the Company is now subject to two securities class actions consolidated as In re Vuzix Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:18-cv-06656, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Securities Class Action”).

On October 18, 2018, Vuzix finally provided further information on a release date for the Vuzix Blade but glaringly absent from the Company’s announcement, or other recent public filings, is any mention of Amazon Alexa, which purported to be an integral additional feature to the Vuzix Blade that was promoted by the Company, as alleged in the Securities Class Action and as conceded by the Company. Further, the Company does not expect to have a general release for both consumers and businesses until January 2019, recognized as one of the worst months for retail due to Christmas returns, instead of during the main selling Christmas holiday season, which raises the very issues of functionality addressed by the MOX Reports Publication.

The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: (i) approving and/or causing the Company to engage in an illicit stock promotion scheme for the purpose of inflating the price of Vuzix shares in anticipation of the SPO; (ii) failing to exercise their oversight duties by not monitoring the Company’s compliance with Company procedures and federal and state regulations; and (iii) making and/or causing the Company to make false and misleading statements and/or material omissions.

A copy of the Complaint and be viewed here: 2018.10.29 - Vuzix - Complaint (stamped, reviewed)

To learn more about this action, contact us today!

Grabar Law Office has filed a putative class action against Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“defendant” or “Merck”) on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States and its territories that purchased RotaTeq directly from Merck from April 25, 2014 through the present. This action challenges Merck’s anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme whereby Merck leverages its monopoly power in multiple pediatric vaccine markets to maintain its monopoly power in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market, enabling it to charge supra competitive prices to purchasers of its rotavirus vaccines.

Specifically, as alleged, Merck had contracts that offered “bundled” discounts that would condition pricing on loyalty to a bundle of Merck vaccines.  In preparation for a competitor's introduction of a competing rotavirus vaccine, Merck added a condition to its contracts that required customers to buy all or nearly all of their pediatric rotavirus vaccines from Merck or face substantial penalties on all other Merck vaccines (the “RotaTeq Bundled Loyalty Condition”). This new bundle (the “Merck Bundle”) meant that any customer who wanted to buy the competitor's vaccine had to be willing to accept substantial penalties on any RotaTeq the customer bought and substantial penalties on all other Merck vaccines as well.  As alleged in the Complaint, the Merck Bundle substantially foreclosed the Rotavirus Vaccine Market to would-be lower cost competition.  As a result, plaintiff and the proposed class were overcharged having paid artificially inflated prices for rotavirus vaccines.

The case is Margiotti & Kroll, P.C. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 18-CV-3064 (E.D.Pa.).

To learn more about this matter, contact us today!

Grabar Law Office is investigating an alleged scheme to restrain trade in the Mexican Government Bond market following ongoing investigations by Mexico’s antitrust regulator, the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica (COFECE), which have uncovered evidence of anti-competitive conduct in the marketplace for Mexican Government Bonds (“MGBs”). Certain investment banks allegedly rigged auctions through collusive bidding and information sharing, selling MGBs such as Cetes, Bondes D, Bonos, and Udibonos at artificially high prices and agreed to fix the “bid-ask” price in order to increase the asking price at which they were sold.

Last April, the COFECE released its findings, with the head of the investigatory authority, Carlos Mena Labarthe, stating, “The damage to public finance and investors could be serious, considering that every year the government places hundreds of billions of Mexican pesos in these markets and that the daily volume of the instruments traded may reach approximately 100 billion Mexican pesos.” It has been reported that one of the entities subject to the investigation had been granted leniency for its violations. Mexico only offers such leniency when the entity has shown that it directly participated in a cartel.

The conspiracy allegedly financially impacted all persons that entered into an MGB transaction between at least January 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside the United States or its territories, transacted in the United States or its territories.

If you transacted in MGBs at any time between January 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017 and would like to learn more, contact us at 267-507-6085 or jgrabar@grabarlaw.com.

Grabar Law Office has filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of all natural persons employed by Defendants, Knorr-Bremse AG; Knorr Brake Company; New Yord Air Brake Company; Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation; Faiveley Transport North America Inc.; and Railroad Controls L.P, or their wholly owned subsidiaries at any time from 2009 to the present.

This putative class action challenges unlawful agreements between two of the world’s largest rail equipment suppliers to restrain competition in the labor markets in which they compete for employees. Without the knowledge and consent of their employees, Defendants collectively agreed not to solicit each other’s employees, recruit each other’s employees, hire each other’s employees without prior approval, or otherwise compete for employees (collectively, “no-poach agreements”).

The no-poach agreements spanned several years and were monitored and enforced by high-level company executives, and had the effect of unlawfully allocating employees between the companies, resulting in harm to U.S. workers.

By implementing these unlawful agreements, Knorr and Wabtec (including Faiveley) substantially reduced competition for employees to the detriment of rail-equipment industry workers in this important U.S. industry. These no-poach agreements denied American rail-equipment industry workers access to better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of competitively significant information that they could have used to negotiate for better terms of employment, including higher pay. Moreover, these no-poach agreements disrupted the efficient allocation of labor that comes from Knorr, Wabtec, and Faiveley vigorously competing for rail-equipment industry employees.

Knorr and Wabtec have agreed to settle these claims with the Department of Justice.

The case is Carruth v. Knorr-Bremse AG, et. al, 2:18-cv-00469-CRE (W.D.PA.).

View the Complaint here: Filed Complaint

View news article here: Employees Sue Knorr, Wabtec After DOJ No-Poach Settlement - Law360

To learn more about this matter, contact us today!

United States District Court for the Northern District Alabama federal judge, Hon. R. David Proctor, has decided that health care providers and subscribers suing Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers need only prove that the insurance plans plotted to divide geographic markets to succeed on those claims in antitrust litigation.

Judge Proctor determined that the proper applicable standard to apply in this matter is the per se standard, which automatically assumes hardcore violations like price-fixing harms competition, to the plaintiffs' allegations that the BCBS plans agreed to divide the market among themselves and not compete with one another through a series of trademark licensing agreements and other arrangements. The judge, who is overseeing the five-year-old MDL that goes to the core of the BCBS model, ruled on summary judgment that the network couldn't offset any per se violations with evidence of the benefits of the collaboration.

The case is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, case number 2:13-cv-20000, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Grabar Law Office has filed a second class action against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency for illegally extending student loan payoff durations to generate extra servicing fees and interest payments from 2009 to the present. As alleged in the complaint, since 2009, the PHEAA, which is one of four primary servicers of federal student loan debt, delayed or failed to process applications under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education grant program. These programs are designed to make higher education more affordable for public servants by providing financial assistance to reduce the burden of their student loans, and they include complete forgiveness of federal student debt for borrowers who commit to 10 years of qualifying public service employment.

Plaintiff in this action, a resident of Spokane, Washington, borrowed federal student loans to pay for her post graduate education. Plaintiff began working for an authorized 501(C)(3) entity under the Public Loan Forgiveness (“PLSF”) program. Despite making timely payments and meeting all of the requisite criteria, FedLoan miscounted the number of qualifying payments made by Plaintiff during the period of qualifying employment. Based on when Plaintiff met all of the PSLF criteria, plaintiff made thirty-one (31) qualified payments. Yet, as of January 2018, only five (5) payments were correctly calculated by FedLoan, despite Plaintiff having sent recertification in December 2017 reflecting a start date of June 2015 and having made timely payments under the IDR plan. Moreover, in January 2018, FedLoan spoke directly with Plaintiff’s Human Resources Department to verify Plaintiff’s employment start date. As alleged in the complaint, Defendant PHEAA’s failure to correctly process Plaintiff’s loan payments has resulted in a loss of credit for what otherwise would have been years of qualified payments under the PSLF program, thereby significantly extending the duration of her student loans.

The case is brought on behalf of all persons whose student loans were serviced by FedLoan and who enrolled in an Alternative Loan Repayment Programs during the period of at least January 1, 2009 through the present (“the Class Period”).

The case is Arielle Anderson v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, 18-cv-1378(E.D.Pa.).

If you have a FedLoan serviced through PHEAA and are having issues with respect to student loan payments or forgiveness, contact us today!

Grabar Law Office has filed a putative class action on behalf of direct purchasers of customized promotional products, including silicone wristbands (“CPPs”), against the top producers and manufacturers of these products for their alleged conspiracy to restrain of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all persons and entities in the United States (excluding Defendants, their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates as well as federal government entities) that directly purchased CPPs from any of the Defendants or their co-conspirators at any time during the period from June 1, 2014 through the present (the “Class Period”).  To date, four of the alleged cartel members have pleaded guilty for their roles in their unlawful scheme.

Plaintiff in this complaint is Timothy Hayden, the President of the Nectrotizing Fasciitis Foundation (“NFF”). Plaintiff bought customized silicone wristbands directly from Defendant Zaappaaz, Inc., through its Wrist-Band.com website during the Class Period and donated them to NFF.  Defendants include Gennex Media, LLC; Zaappaaz, Inc.; Custom Wristbands, Inc.; Netbrands Media Corp.; Casad Company, Inc.; Brandco, L.L.C.; Azim Makanojiya; Mashnoon Ahmed; Christopher Angeles; and Akil Kurji.

The Case is Hayden v. Gennex Media, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-883 (S.D. Tex.)

If you believe that you were impacted by this alleged conspiracy and would like to learn more, contact us today.

Grabar Law Office has filed a putative class action on behalf of automobile dealerships against Defendants CDK Global, LLC and the Reynolds and Reynolds Company for unlawfully allocating markets and customers to monopolize and artificially raise (or stabilize) prices throughout the United States for: data management systems (“DMS”); the service of extracting, formatting, integrating, and organizing the data stored on DMS (“Data Integration Services”); and the service of business management applications (“Vendor Services”). Defendant’s anticompetitive scheme was accomplished by: agreeing not to compete against the Reynolds and Reynolds Company (“R&R”) for automobile dealership customers; forcing automobile dealership customers to work exclusively with either CDK or R&R to meet all “back office” needs; and acquiring or foreclosing independent competitors from the market. The net effect of CDK’s unlawful scheme was the creation of side-by-side data monopolies that raised prices to dealerships and downstream purchasers needing access to data to provide supplemental services to dealerships.

As alleged in the complaint, the conspiracy was and is a restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize markets in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. Plaintiff seeks to represent all automobile dealerships that, during the period from and including January 1, 2015 through the present (the “Class Period”), purchased DMS from CDK or R&R, and any current or former subsidiaries of CDK or R&R.

The case is Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. d/b/a Bob Tyler Toyota, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, 1:18-cv-01402 (N.D. Ill.).

If you believe that you were impacted by this alleged conspiracy and would like to learn more, contact us today.

Grabar Law Office has filed a second putative class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia similarly situated (the “Class”) for damages and injunctive relief under Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 3) against defendants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Murata Electronics North America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Panasonic Electronic Devices Co. Ltd; Panasonic Electronic Devices Corporation of America; Sumida Corporation; Sumida Electric Co., Ltd.; Sumida America Components, Inc.; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc.; TDK Corporation; TDK-EPC Corporation; TDK Corporation of North America; and TDK U.S.A. Corporation (collectively “Defendants”). This action is based on an alleged scheme by Defendants to fix prices of Inductors (1) that were sold to or billed to persons or entities in the United States during the period from at least January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2016 (the “Class Period”), or (2) where, during the Class Period, the conduct alleged herein had a direct, substantial, or reasonably foreseeable effect on United States commerce.

Inductors are electronic components that store energy in the form of a magnetic field. Along with resistors (a component having a specific amount of resistance to the flow of an electrical current) and capacitors (a two-terminal electronic component that stores potential energy in the form of an electrical field), Inductors are viewed as part of the category of “passive electronic components.” Inductors are found in a wide variety of electronic equipment, including: (a) smartphones and other types of consumer electronic equipment; (b) advanced driver assistance systems (“ADAS”) used in vehicles; (c) induction motors that are used in industry to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy; and (d) various military, naval, and air force equipment ranging from missile systems to radars and sonars.

This action follows reports that certain Japanese companies have received investigative subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice looking into potential market price-fixing activity over Inductors, as well as pending Department of Justice probes into two other electric circuit components. The case is Arch Electronics, Inc., v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., et al. Case 3:18-cv-01128 (N.D. Cal.).

If you believe that you were impacted by this alleged conspiracy and would like to learn more, contact us today.

Grabar Law Office has filed a class action against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency for illegally extending student loan payoff durations to generate extra servicing fees and interest payments from 2009 to the present. As alleged in the complaint, since 2009, the PHEAA, which is one of four primary servicers of federal student loan debt, delayed or failed to process applications under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education grant program. These programs are designed to make higher education more affordable for public servants by providing financial assistance to reduce the burden of their student loans, and they include complete forgiveness of federal student debt for borrowers who commit to 10 years of qualifying public service employment.

The case is brought on behalf of all persons whose student loans were serviced by FedLoan and who enrolled in an Alternative Loan Repayment Programs during the period of at least January 1, 2009 through the present (“the Class Period”).

The case is Carol Clancy v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, 2:18-cv-00753-CDJ (E.D.Pa.).

If you have a FedLoan serviced through PHEAA and are having issues with respect to student loan payments or forgiveness, contact us today

Grabar Law Office has filed a putative class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia similarly situated (the “Class”) for damages and injunctive relief under Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 3) against defendants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Murata Electronics North America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Panasonic Electronic Devices Co. Ltd; Panasonic Electronic Devices Corporation of America; Sumida Corporation; Sumida Electric Co., Ltd.; Sumida America Components, Inc.; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc.; TDK Corporation; TDK-EPC Corporation; TDK Corporation of North America; and TDK U.S.A. Corporation (collectively “Defendants”). This action is based on an alleged scheme by Defendants to fix prices of Inductors (1) that were sold to or billed to persons or entities in the United States during the period from at least January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2016 (the “Class Period”), or (2) where, during the Class Period, the conduct alleged herein had a direct, substantial, or reasonably foreseeable effect on United States commerce.

Inductors are electronic components that store energy in the form of a magnetic field. Along with resistors (a component having a specific amount of resistance to the flow of an electrical current) and capacitors (a two-terminal electronic component that stores potential energy in the form of an electrical field), Inductors are viewed as part of the category of “passive electronic components.” Inductors are found in a wide variety of electronic equipment, including: (a) smartphones and other types of consumer electronic equipment; (b) advanced driver assistance systems (“ADAS”) used in vehicles; (c) induction motors that are used in industry to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy; and (d) various military, naval, and air force equipment ranging from missile systems to radars and sonars.

This action follows reports that certain Japanese companies have received investigative subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice looking into potential market price-fixing activity over Inductors, as well as pending Department of Justice probes into two other electric circuit components — capacitors and resistors.

The case is Powerweb, Inc., et al. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., et al. 3:18cv00349 (N.D. Cal.).

If you believe that you were impacted by this alleged conspiracy and would like to learn more, contact us today.

Grabar Law Office serves as co-counsel on behalf of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund and all others similarly situated in a nationwide class action against alleging that Allergan maintained an unlawful, illegitimate monopoly for cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion, a product commonly sold as Restasis.  According to the complaint, Allergan has used the laws and courts of the United States to prevent would-be generic manufacturers of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion from entering into and competing in the market for this emulsion.  This civil antitrust action seeks recovery of damages on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers who bought Restasis indirectly from Allergan at supracompetitive prices.

On December 16, 2017, MetLife, Inc. disclosed that it has failed to pay monthly pension benefits to possibly tens of thousands of workers in accounts that MetLife, Inc. manages for employers pursuant to its pension risk transfer business. It has been alleged that payments could be overdue for as long as ten years.

If you have a pension managed by MetLife, Inc. and have not received your monthly payments, please contact us to discuss your legal rights. You can use Facebook, e-mail at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com, or call us at 267-507-6085. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.

Mr. Grabar is honored to have been selected, once again for 2018, as one of Pennsylvania's Super Lawyers by Thompson Reuters' Super Lawyers publication. Each year, no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the Commonwealth are selected to receive this honor.​ Designation as a Super Lawyer is recognition that Mr. Grabar has distinguished himself with respect to his achievements as a practitioner and advocate in the eyes of the legal community in which he practices.

Grabar Law Office files national class action on behalf of all persons who reside in the United States whose Personally Identifiable Information was compromised as a result of the data breaches occurring at Equifax between March and August of 2017.  As alleged in the Complaint, from March through July of 2017, Equifax experienced one of the largest data security breaches in history. Cyber attackers stole the Personally Identifiable Information of approximately 145 million Americans from Equifax’s files. (“Class Members”). In the face of this extraordinary event which caused so much harm to so many innocent Americans, three key executives of Equifax decided that this was the time to extract an extraordinary profit based on their inside information, before information about the breach became public. These executives dumped nearly $1.8 million in stock holdings shortly after July 29. On August 1, Chief Financial Officer John Gamble sold shares worth $946,374 and another executive, Joseph Loughran, exercised $584,099 in stock options. The following day, Rodolfo Ploder sold $250,458 in Equifax stock. Following Equifax’s September 7 data-breach announcement, shares plummeted more than 13%, wiping out more than $2 billion in investors’ assets. This is the third data breach at Equifax since 2015. Despite two prior incidents and the fact that it was storing sensitive personal information that it knew was valuable to, and vulnerable to, cyber attackers, Equifax failed to take security precautions that could have protected Class Members’ data. Instead, Equifax used grossly inadequate computer systems and data security practices that allowed the hackers to easily make off with Class Members’ Personally Identifiable Information. As alleged in the Complaint, since the Data Breach, Class Members have been repeatedly harmed, and all of them are at risk for future identity theft given the loss of privacy of their Social Security numbers. Class members have spent countless hours filing police reports and poring over credit reports to combat identity theft, but new fraud is still being perpetrated against them using the sensitive information taken during the Data Breach. Many are now paying monthly or annual fees for identity theft and credit monitoring services that they trust, and others have had to place credit freezes on their accounts, which greatly hinders their ability to transact business and apply for credit as they could before the breach.

Grabar Law Office acts as co-counsel in multidistrict class action litigation alleging that over 20 financial institutions, referred to as primary dealers, conspired to manipulate the pricing of (1) U.S. Treasury securities (Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments) at Treasury auctions overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and (2) derivative financial products, such as Treasury futures and options, that are based on or otherwise tied to the price of Treasury securities. In particular, all actions allege that the manipulation of pricing information by defendants occurred in the "when issued" market — the pre-auction period between the date the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announces the details of an upcoming auction and the date the new securities are issued.  All actions are on behalf of overlapping putative nationwide classes of persons and entities who transacted in Treasury securities, derivatives, and financial products linked to the interest rates of Treasury securities, and assert claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.

Grabar Law Office is counsel in antitrust class action alleging concerted activity by Defendants—the five (5) largest and most profitable German automobile manufacturers—to unlawfully fix the prices of German Passenger Vehicles, stifle innovation, reduce competition, and mislead American consumers, all for the purpose of increasing their market shares and profitability.

The action seeks equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of the following class (the “Nationwide Class”):

All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1996 and the present, purchased or leased a new German Passenger Vehicle (as defined herein) in the United States primarily for personal, rather than commercial, use.

The action seeks damages pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws as well as common law unjust enrichment on behalf of the following class (the “State Class”):

All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1996 and the present, purchased or leased a new German Passenger Vehicle (as defined herein) in New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Massachusetts, or North Carolina, not for resale, which was manufactured or sold by a Defendant, any current or former subsidiary of a Defendant or any co-conspirators of the Defendants.

Grabar Law Office acts as local counsel to Self-Insured Schools of California in antitrust class action alleging that generic drug manufacturers with 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 over the course of the past few years, without any underlying shortage in raw material or increase in demand.

Presently, the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges that generic drug manufacturers fixed prices of at least 18 generic drugs. These increases drew the attention of regulators in 2014 (by Bernie Sanders and Elijah Cummings) and resulted in numerous civil and criminal investigations.  In 2016, one generic drug manufacturer reportedly sought leniency from the U.S. government for its role in a generic drug price-fixing conspiracy.  Two former pharmaceutical executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges of price-fixing, while the U.S. Attorney General and twenty state attorneys general filed lawsuits alleging price-fixing among generic drug manufacturers.

Grabar Law Office files, as local counsel to Self-Insured Schools of California, an antitrust class action alleging that Defendants have conspired to fix and raise the prices for albuterol sulfate tablets sold in 2mg and 4mg dosages (referred to herein as “Albuterol Sulfate Tablets”) in the United States. The complaint alleges that Defendants’ conspiracy resulted in Plaintiff and the Class paying artificially inflated prices for Albuterol Sulfate Tablets. In fact, as alleged, between April and May 2013, the average purchase price for Albuterol Sulfate Tablets by retail community pharmacies increased 4,270%, from $0.10 to $4.37 per pill, for the 2mg dosage and 2,644%, from $0.16 to $4.39, for the 4mg dosage. During the one-year period from December 2012 to December 2013, the average price of Albuterol Sulfate Tablets paid to retailers increased by 1,746%, from $0.28 to $5.17. The timing and magnitude of the extraordinary increases were similar for the two primary manufacturers of Albuterol Sulfate Tablets. During this period, the average retail price of 2mg pills increased over 1,000% for Mylan (from $0.17 to $5.55) and Sun (from $0.30 to $4.42). The average retail price of 4mg pills similarly increased by over 1,000% for Mylan (from $0.21 to $5.85) and Sun (from $0.42 to $4.36). It is alleged that these massive price increases are extremely atypical and cannot be explained by traditional market forces.

Grabar Law Office acts as a discovery team leader in 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. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees (collectively “Defendants”) 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. These market allocation agreements are implemented through licensing agreements between the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and individual Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees. 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.

Grabar Law Office files an action against Qualcomm for injunctive relief and to recover substantial damages suffered as a result of Qualcomm’s violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer laws and the common law of unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff, a purchaser of CDMA- and/or premium LTE cellular devices, including an Apple iPhone 6, Apple iPad Mini 2, and Samsung Galaxy S6, each of which contains a baseband processor (also called a modem chipset), which are semiconductor devices that enable cellular communications in cellphones and other products.  The action alleges that Qualcomm’s unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in baseband processors. It is alleged that Qualcomm has maintained its monopoly by engaging in anticompetitive, exclusionary conduct, including, without limitation: (a) failure to license standard-essential patents to all applicants on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms; (b) withholding Qualcomm’s baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms imposed by Qualcomm, including excessive and unlawful royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors’ processors (“no license-no chips”); (c) refusing to license its cellular standard-essential patents to competitors, in violation of Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments; and (d) entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, including with Apple Inc., a large and highly important cellphone manufacturer.

It is alleged that Qualcomm’s anticompetitive conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class Members to pay inflated prices for each cellular telephone and cellular device they purchased and has excluded competitors, harmed competition, taxed Qualcomm’s competitors’ baseband processor sales and reduced competitors’ ability to compete and incentive to innovate.

Grabar Law Office acts as co-counsel in a class action that alleges that the defendants, Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Companies, Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, who collectively control close to 90 percent of the dental supplies and equipment distribution market, conspired to restrain trade and fix prices at anticompetitive levels, in violation of the Sherman Act.  As alleged, in furtherance of their conspiracy, the defendants colluded to boycott and pressure dental manufacturers, dental distributors, and state dental associations that did business with or considered doing business with the defendants' lower-priced rivals. By foreclosing their competitors' access to key market participants, the defendants were able to stifle competition and impair competition.  As alleged, the defendants also adopted nearly identical pricing and compensation policies, adopted policies limiting their ability to hire each other's sales representatives, and exchanged pricing information to preserve and monitor their cartelized prices. The suit claims that as a result of the defendants' anticompetitive conduct, members of the class were overcharged on dental supplies and equipment.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court denied a motion to dismiss brought by defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Companies, Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, and ruled that the case could proceed.

Grabar Law Office serves as co-counsel in a nationwide class action against the major platinum and palladium dealers Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Standard Bank, and BASF, for manipulation of key benchmarks used to price platinum and palladium, known as the "Platinum and Palladium Fixings."

According to the allegations, these entities meet twice a day by teleconference in order to establish a global price for these commodities in the world market. The prices set during these "fixings" also determine the prices of platinum and palladium-based financial products, traded on NYMEX. The plaintiffs allege that for at least eight years, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Standard Bank, and BASF used their influence over the Platinum and Palladium Fixings to manipulate the prices for these metals to enrich themselves at the expense of other market participants. The manipulative conduct included front running and "spoofing" of buy and sell orders. These entities allegedly shared and discussed customer order flows so they could better coordinate their strategies and increase their own financial gains. Investors in these commodities and platinum- or palladium-based financial products, like NYMEX platinum or palladium futures and options, lost millions of dollars as a result of this conduct.

Grabar Law Office acts as counsel on behalf of a proposed class of homeowners and similarly situated consumers who purchased or have homes that were built with defective Cambridge AR roofing shingles manufactured by IKO defendants. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of express and implied warranty, violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1 et seq., fraudulent concealment, and declaratory relief.

Dear Friends:
It is with great pleasure that I announce the formation of the Grabar Law Office.  The Firm focuses its practice on antitrust, securities, and consumer class action litigation and compliance. You can continue to expect the same commitment and dedication that I have demonstrated over the years.
With this new venture, I look forward to being better able to engage with you whom I have had the pleasure of working in the past.  I also look forward to continuing to serve those of you whom I have been honored to represent.
I take personal pride in striving for a culture of positivity, collaboration, and teamwork among my colleagues and peers.  My unyielding commitment to outstanding service has stood as the foundation of lasting client relationships.  These are the principles upon which the Firm has been established.

Please feel free to contact me. I look forward to continuing to work together.
Sincerely yours,
Joshua H. Grabar