The Firm is actively involved in litigating many complex antitrust cases throughout the United States. Scott+Scott has taken or is currently in a lead role in a number of antitrust actions. Scott+Scott represents plaintiffs in price-fixing, monopolization, bid-rigging, customer restraints and other restraints of trade cases, including both individual and class action cases. In such actions, Scott+Scott works to ensure that the markets remain free, open and competitive to the benefit of both consumers purchasing and business enterprises operating in such markets. In addition to traditional price-fixing cases, the Firm and its lawyers have taken the lead in a number of novel antitrust claims throughout the United States, including, among others, Red Lion Medical Safety, Inc. v. Ohmeda, Inc. (tying claims in medical device industry), Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners (market allocation by private equity firms), In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation and Weintraub v. Aetna, et al. (restraint in market for the provision of usual and customary rates used to establish out-of-network reimbursement).
In addition to bringing antitrust class actions, Scott+Scott has represented and continues to represent companies, including publicly-traded corporations, such as Parker Hannifin Corporation, PolyOne Corporation and Lincoln Electric, in various opt-out antitrust litigation. Representative opt-out litigation includes In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation, 1:02-cv-0844-KMO (N.D. Ohio), In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1648, In re Polychloroprene Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1642, and In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 1684. Recently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a trial verdict of $23,036,000 obtained by Scott+Scott in In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation.