Practice Areas

Antitrust, Commodities, and Securities Fraud

Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP and its predecessors (the “Firm”) have obtained, as sole lead counsel or co-lead counsel, the largest class action settlement in the history of each of three federal statutes. See In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("this all-cash settlement [for $1,027,000,000], achieved through 'four years of hard-fought litigation,' apparently is the largest recovery (class action or otherwise) in the hundred year history of the state and federal antitrust laws."); In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 74 F. Supp.2d 393, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("The recovery is the largest class action recovery in the 75 plus year history of the Commodity Exchange Act"); Blatt v. Merrill Lynch Fenner & Smith, Inc., 94 Civ. 2348 (JAG) (D.N.J.) ("by far the largest settlement" of class action claims under the Investment Company Act, Securities Class Action Alert letter dated August 17, 2000).

With regard to antitrust experience, the Firm has prosecuted the following notable cases:

            (1)  The Firm is the only class action firm to try, and also the only class action firm to win, a verdict and judgment on claims for price-fixing in violation of the antitrust laws and manipulation in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.  Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 582 F. Supp. 770 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 768 F.2d 22 (2d cir. 1985) (after the Department of Justice decided not to bring price-fixing claims under the federal antitrust laws, and after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission lost a trial seeking to prove manipulation, the Firm tried and won claims for price-fixing and manipulation in a three week jury trial before the Honorable Lloyd F. MacMahon).  Although there are many other law firms that have done plaintiffs' work in antitrust cases, there are very few (if any) besides this Firm that have tried and won a price-fixing case in a New York Federal Court.

            (2) The Firm successfully argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that a private right of action for manipulation should be implied under the Commodity Exchange Act.  Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982)
 
            (3) In 1982, a 97th Congress Subcommittee requested that the Firm testify concerning the proposed express private right of action under the Commodity Exchange Act, which ultimately became Section 22 of the CEA.  See Statement of Leonard Toboroff, Before The Sub-committee On Oversight And Investigations of The Committee On Energy And Commerce dated June 7, 1982.

            (4) The Firm’s senior partner, Christopher Lovell, successfully tried claims of manipulation and other charges in violation of the CEA.  Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exch., 582 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff’d, 768 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1985)), cert. denied sub nom., Simplot v. Strobl, 474 U.S. 1006 (1985)

            (5) In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 455, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (the Firm was appointed one of four co-lead counsel in these claims for price-fixing which resulted in the largest class action settlement (up to that time) in the history of the antitrust laws; according to plaintiffs' experts and due to the absence of any reversionary terms in the settlement agreements, this settlement produced a pay-out to class members, after deducting all attorneys' fees and costs, that equaled their single (non-trebled damages)).  Again, although there are many law firms that have experience in prosecuting antitrust class actions, very few have secured settlements that achieved a return for the class members, after payment of all attorneys' fees and costs have been deducted, of 100 cents on the dollar for their single (non-trebled) damages.                      

            (6) In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, No. 94 C 897 (N.D.Ill.) (attorneys in the firm served on the Executive Committee and performed extensive work on claims alleging price-fixing in violation of antitrust laws and resulting in settlement of $696,667,000 in cash, together with additional benefits, which constituted the second largest class action settlement to that point in the history of the federal antitrust laws).

            (7) In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 Civ. 0648 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (as interim co-lead counsel, the Firm prepared the successful class motion and reply papers, winning certification of price-fixing claims in violation of the antitrust laws which later resulted in a settlement of $512,000,000).

           (8) Leider v. Ralfe, No. 01 Civ. 3137 (S.D.N.Y., transferred to D.N.J.) (the Firm filed the first action alleging price-fixing and monopolization by DeBeers in the diamond market in violation of the antitrust laws, prosecuted the case through the conclusion of evidentiary hearing of injunctive relief before a settlement was reached; as one of class counsel the Firm successfully negotiated that the proposed settlement and extensive injunctive relief immediately take effect; total settlements were $290,000,000).

           (9) In re Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486 (N.D.Cal.) (the Firm was appointed to the Executive Committee on these class action claims alleging price-fixing of computer memory in violation of the federal antitrust laws and have resulted, so far, in settlements of in excess of $313,000,000).