GoodRx Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP has filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against generic drug coupon provider GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus. The lawsuit challenges those defendants’ conduct in artificially suppressing prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to independent pharmacies, and increasing fees charged to independent pharmacies, through the use of GoodRx-supplied prices. The defendants’ conduct has caused financial harm to independent pharmacies throughout the country.

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that GoodRx and the PBM defendants conspired to suppress reimbursement rates and increase fees charged to independent pharmacies on all GoodRx-related transactions through GoodRx’s “integrated savings program.” The GoodRx integrated savings program uses GoodRx’s pricing algorithm, and real-time pricing information from PBMs, to determine prices of generic drug transactions—and to enrich GoodRx and the PBMs at the expense of independent pharmacies.

The lawsuit seeks to recover the damages incurred by independent pharmacies throughout the United States, and to put a stop to the illegal conduct of GoodRx and the PBMs in participating in the GoodRx integrated savings program. It is the first lawsuit in the U.S. challenging this conduct.

Who is Affected?
Independent pharmacies throughout the United States may have been affected by the defendants’ conduct. If your pharmacy has dispensed generic prescription medication to a patient using insurance and received reimbursement from Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, or Navitus for that prescription at a GoodRx-supplied price, it may have been injured by the defendants’ conduct.

Details on the Parties and the Complaint
The plaintiff, Keaveny Drug, an independent pharmacy in Minnesota, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit is captioned Keaveny Drug, Inc. v. GoodRx, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-09379. The defendants are GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corp., Express Scripts, Inc., MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., and Navitus Health Solutions, LLC.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please use the form or email us at info@locklaw.com.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Which State Does Your Pharmacy Do Business In?(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

SaveOnSP and PrudentRx Investigation

/by

Overview
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) like Express Scripts and Caremark have partnered with secretive third party companies like SaveOnSP and PrudentRx to siphon off patient copay assistance meant to help patients afford their prescription drugs and to foist thousands of dollars in additional healthcare costs onto patients. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) is investigating the ways in which these programs violate federal law and increase healthcare costs for targeted patients.

Background

The Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) provides safeguards against excess healthcare costs for patients in the U.S., including an upper limit on patients’ copay and coinsurance obligations and an maximum that a patient can be forced to pay out-of-pocket each year. Still, prescription drug costs threaten to undermine these protections: a majority of patients on employer-sponsored health plans report delaying filling prescriptions, rationing medications, or skipping prescribed therapy altogether due to cost; and three quarters of patients cannot afford prescriptions that cost $250 or more out of pocket.

To help ensure patients can access necessary and life-saving medications, manufacturers of drugs with high patient costs offer patient assistance programs. These programs cover patients’ out-of-pocket costs up to a set amount. These patient assistance programs, traditionally, have helped reduce the cost burdens of patients with complex and expensive medical conditions.

Recently, PBMs have partnered with companies like SaveOnSP and PrudentRx to evade the ACA’s protections and nullify the relief that patient assistance programs provide. As a result, targeted patients end up having to pay thousands of dollars in additional medical costs during the year that otherwise would have been paid by their insurer after they reached their maximum out-of-pocket limits.

Details of the Investigation

LGN is investigating potential claims against SaveOnSP, PrudentRx, and other companies that violate the ACA and force patients to incur excess healthcare costs. We are looking to speak with patients that have enrolled in SaveOnSP, PrudentRx, or similar programs about their experience with the program, and looking for patients that would like to help us put an end to these practices.

Contact
If you have been impacted by programs like SaveOnSP or PrudentRx and would like to get involved, please submit your information below or reach out to Brian Clark or Kristie LaSalle.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen (“LGN”) has been appointed co-lead counsel in a lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of PVC municipal water pipe and electrical conduit (collectively, “PVC Pipes”).  Prices for PVC Pipes have been historically high for the last several years.  Purchasers of PVC Pipes such as municipalities and contractors have been shouldering the burden of these high prices, paying more for the PVC Pipes they need to complete critical infrastructure and electrical projects. LGN has investigated the markets for PVC Pipes and determined that PVC converters (manufactures) used the COVID-19 pandemic as cover for illegal price-fixing and need to be held accountable.

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants colluded in exploiting the COVID-19 economic crisis by artificially maintaining the historically high pricing brought by the COVID pandemic. Like so many other recent antitrust cases, there is a price reporting firm at the center of Defendants’ conspiracy. Defendants used OPIS as the proverbial smoke-filled backroom to exchange business information, monitor their competitors, and frustrate the dynamics of a competitive market. 

On August 23, 2024, LGN filed a lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of PVC pipes alleging that beginning in or around January 2021, PVC Pipe prices were artificially inflated because of a conspiracy between the price reporting service OPIS and the largest converters of PVC Pipes.


What are PVC Pipes?
PVC municipal water pipe is PVC pipe that carries the municipal, potable (i.e., drinking) water supply from reservoirs, lakes, or rivers to treatment facilities and from there to water mains that distribute water throughout the community. PVC electrical conduit is PVC pipe used to protect bundled wires.

Details on Parties and the Complaint
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 23, 2024, and is captioned Bavolak v. Atkore, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-07639.  The Defendants are Oil Price Information Service LLC (“OPIS”), Atkore, Inc., Cantex, Inc., Diamond Plastics Corporation, IPEX USA LLC, JM Eagle, National Pipe and Plastics, Inc., Otter Tail Corporation, Prime Conduit, Inc., Southern Pipe, Inc. (Southern Pipe), and Westlake Corporation.

Did you purchase PVC municipal water pipe or electrical conduit after January 2021?  If so, please contact us.

Articles & Documents
Amended Complaint
Leadership Order
Reuters Article – Major PVC pipe makers accused of price-fixing in contractor’s lawsuit
Bloomberg Article – Atkore, Other Manufacturers Hit With PVC Pipes Price-Fixing Case

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please use the form or contact Brian Clark or Simeon Morbey

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Which State do you Currently Reside?(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Admixtures Antitrust Litigation

/by

Summary
Lockridge Grindal Nauen is prosecuting an antitrust class action alleging that the world’s largest manufacturers of concrete and cement additives conspired with each other to increase the prices they charge for those construction chemicals.

Background
The defendants and potential defendants accused of conspiring to fix the prices of their admixtures are:

The complaint alleges that the defendants implemented their agreement to raise the prices of their concrete and cement additives through constant price increases and surcharges, resulting in skyrocketing prices for concrete and cement additives sold in the United States. This antitrust class action comes on the heels of dawn raids by the European Commission and the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority, and grand jury proceedings by the United States Department of Justice, because of potential violations of antitrust laws that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices.

Were you affected by the alleged concrete and cement additives conspiracy?

If your construction company purchased ready-mix concrete, concrete admixtures, cement additives, or admixtures for mortar any time since 2018, you may have overpaid for those construction chemicals.

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please contact Jessica Servais or Joe Bourne.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

MULTIPLAN OUT-OF-NETWORK HEALTH INSURANCE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

/by

BACKGROUND

The healthcare industry has been and continues to be plagued by significant financial challenges. Costs to providers are surging and sustaining operations has become a struggle for hospitals and other patient care centers. Many hospital systems have gone bankrupt over the last several years. Others, facing financial ruin, have been bought up by private equity companies. These consolidations leave patients with fewer healthcare options. Commercial health reimbursements comprise the majority of healthcare providers’ revenue. Providers therefore depend upon competition among commercial health insurers to ensure that commercial insurance reimbursement rates are sufficient to cover costs and preserve patient access to healthcare across the United States.

On behalf of out-of-network healthcare providers nationwide, Lockridge Grindal Nauen has filed a lawsuit alleging that beginning in or around July 2017, the reimbursements that providers nationwide have received for the out-of-network services they provided have been illegally suppressed as a result of a conspiracy between the commercial health insurance companies in the United States and MultiPlan, a claims “repricing” service. The lawsuit alleges a price-fixing conspiracy between these companies, through which these defendants perversely reap enormous profits off of the spread between what a provider claims for a given medical service and what the insurer actually pays.

All major commercial health insurers in the United States, and many smaller ones, have joined with MultiPlan to form a cartel dedicated to depriving healthcare providers of fair reimbursement for out-of-network services. This includes many well-known insurers, such as UnitedHealth, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, Centene, and Elevance (which includes many Blue Cross and Blue Shield associations). The complaint alleges that these insurers have taken an active role in perpetuating the anticompetitive scheme.

The cartel members agree on the method of pricing out-of-network claims. They agree to share their competitively sensitive reimbursement data to help drive the fake “repricing” algorithm through which MultiPlan and the insurers fix reimbursement prices. They work with MultiPlan to select “overrides” for that algorithm and agree to allow MultiPlan to align the “override” values across members of the cartel. The insurers agree to pay healthcare providers what MultiPlan tells them to pay, and not to undercut other cartel members with competitive pricing. They agree to condition payment on a provider’s agreement not to bill the patient for the proportion of the claim the insurer does not pay, a critical step in keeping the existence of the cartel secret.

In a competitive market, none of this would happen. If the market were competitive, each health insurer would fiercely guard its reimbursement data as competitively sensitive information, and would compete with other insurers by paying healthcare providers fairly for out-of-network healthcare services rendered, so that those physicians would provide healthcare when the insurers’ members need it.

MultiPlan and the insurance companies accomplished a reimbursement suppression scheme together that none could accomplish on their own. These defendants each collected from insurance-plan sponsors (usually employers) a percentage of the “spread,” or the difference between what a healthcare provider charges and what the insurer ultimately pays—as a fee for each claim suppressed, and then split that fee between themselves.

Out-of-network healthcare providers are harmed by this misconduct. The complaint alleges that the cartel has driven down the payments healthcare providers receive by between 61% and 81%, when compared with a transparent, accurate, and fair benchmark published by a non-profit formed for the express purpose of combatting price-fixing in the market for out-of-network medical claim reimbursements.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 6, 2024, and is captioned Live Well Chiropractic PLLC v. MultiPlan, Inc., et al., No. 1:24cv03680. The defendants are MultiPlan, Inc., MultiPlan Corp., Viant, Inc., Viant Payment Systems, Inc., National Care Network, LP, National Care Network, LLC, UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Aetna, Inc., Elevance Health, Inc., Centene Corp., Cigna Group, Health Care Service Corp., Humana Inc., Kaiser Permanente LLC, Blue Shield of California, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Co., and Health Alliance Medical Plans, Inc.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

Complaint

CONTACT US

Are you a healthcare provider that provided out-of-network medical services since July 2017?

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please fill out the form below or contact Brian Clark, Steve Teti, or Kristie LaSalle at bdclark@locklaw.com, sjteti@locklaw.com, kalasalle@locklaw.com or at 612-339-6900.

PayPal Antitrust Litigation

/by
BACKGROUND

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP has been appointed as co-lead counsel in a lawsuit the Firm has filed on behalf of consumers against PayPal concerning anticompetitive agreements between PayPal and all eCommerce merchants that accept PayPal as a method of payment. The lawsuit alleges that PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules have caused consumers to pay more than they ordinarily would have for their eCommerce transactions, in violation of federal antitrust and other laws. 

PayPal is the dominant eCommerce payments platform in the United States. More than 400 million consumers have PayPal accounts, including 75% of all Americans. Nearly 1 million eCommerce websites in the United States accept PayPal as a means of payment. Every day, PayPal processes 41 million transactions.  

To accept PayPal, eCommerce merchants in the United States enter form contracts with PayPal that, since no later than 2010, strictly prohibit offering price discounts when consumers use non-PayPal means of payment. Thus, while PayPal charges merchants the highest transaction fees in the industry (over 3.5% per eCommerce transaction), PayPal-accepting merchants have agreed by contract that they will not use price incentives to steer consumers away from PayPal to more cost-effective payment solutions. By way of example, if a PayPal-accepting merchant sells an iPhone 11s for $288.00 when a consumer pays with PayPal, that merchant cannot offer even one penny less than $288.00 to consumers who select a more cost-effective payment method to complete the same transaction. 

Since at least 2017, PayPal’s merchant agreements also prohibit non-price forms of steering consumers toward rival payment platforms. Under such agreements, eCommerce merchants can neither express any preference for other payment options, nor prioritize them in their online storefronts or checkout flows. Merchants must present PayPal as an entirely neutral option when, in fact, the economic consequences of clicking PayPal at checkout are significant and adverse. 

These restraints are known as “Anti-Steering Rules,” and PayPal is alleged to have violated various antitrust and other laws by their imposition thereof. Without these Anti-Steering Rules, merchants could competitively price transactions by the cost of the selected payments platform, allowing consumers to secure discounts at checkout. The Anti-Steering Rules, however, preclude any such discounts, effectively fixing a price floor for millions of products that eCommerce consumers can obtain with payment methods other than PayPal. 

The result is higher merchant transaction fees across the industry, but it is ultimately everyday eCommerce consumers who pay the price. Beyond PayPal’s market dominance, one of the reasons merchants routinely accept PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules is that, while these rules increase merchants’ transaction fees, such fees are baked into the prices merchants charge consumers. In other words, consumers pay the cost of PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules, not merchants. 

Higher prices are not the only consumer injury resulting from PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules, which also prevent merchants from conveying the pricing information needed for consumers to make a free and informed choice between payment alternatives. That PayPal cannot nudge its customers away from PayPal by conveying simple economic facts – for example, that PayPal charges industry-high fees that inflate prices – also fundamentally distorts competition. 

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of consumers nationwide who transacted with the nearly one million U.S. eCommerce merchants who have agreed to PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules. The lawsuit asserts claims under the federal Sherman Act, as well as state competition laws. 

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 5, 2023, and is captioned Sabol v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:23-cv-5100. 

Are you a Class member? 

If you are a consumer who made online eCommerce transactions and are interested in learning more about this lawsuit, please contact us. 

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at (bdclark@locklaw.com), (sjteti@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.

CASE DOCUMENTS

  1. Amended Complaint
  2. Leadership Order

Protected: Tires Antitrust Litigation

/by

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Southwest Dairy Farmer Antitrust Litigation

/by

Background

Dairy cooperatives like DFA and Select play a vital role in the Southwest dairy industry, as the overwhelming majority of dairy farmers are members of, and market their milk through, these cooperatives. The cooperatives then market the milk to be processed and bottled for fluid or other uses, such as in cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and milk powder.

Beginning in at least January 2015, the prices that Southwestern dairy farmers received for the raw Grade A milk they produced have been remarkably low, often below the farmers’ costs to produce the milk. The lawsuit alleges that DFA and Select began coordinating after the rates paid to Southwestern dairy farmers reached high prices in 2014. Among other things the farmers allege, beginning in at least January 2015, DFA and Select Milk shared pricing information and coordinated pricing and price-related decisions to drive down the price paid to Southwestern farmers for the milk they produced. These defendants capitalized on perceived oversupply, foreign milk production, and decreased fluid milk consumption to offer artificially low prices to Southwestern dairy farmers. The lawsuit alleges that DFA and Select pay their farmers nearly identical rates for the milk they produce each month, and otherwise limit the negotiating power and pricing options for dairy farmers.

The lawsuit alleges that the effect of DFA and Select’s conspiracy “has been devastating to many dairy farmers,” which “has led numerous farmers to borrow from generations of equity built up in their land, relying on that equity to pay themselves and keep their farms in operation. Many Southwestern dairy farmers have been forced to declare bankruptcy and/or completely closed their operations.”

The lawsuit alleges that the dairy industry is particularly susceptible to antitrust conspiracies due to high consolidation within the industry, incredibly complicated price formulas, and a lack of price transparency. As the dominant players, holding the overwhelming majority of market share for Southwest milk production, DFA and Select dictate the prices offered to Southwestern dairy farmers.

On March 11, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Honorable Margaret I. Strickland found that Plaintiffs “plausibly allege[] a continuing conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws,” “sufficiently plead each part of their horizontal price-fixing claim,” and “plausibly allege parallel conduct alongside other factors that when taken together ‘tend to exclude the possibility of independent action.’” In summary, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that “(1) Defendants participated in concerted actions that (2) resulted in depressed prices sufficient to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on April 4, 2022, and is captioned Othart Dairy Farms, LLC, Pareo Farm, Inc., Pareo Farm II, Inc., Desertland Dairy, LLC, Del Oro Dairy, LLC, Bright Star Dairy, LLC, and Sunset Dairy, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Select Milk Producers, Inc., and Greater Southwest Agency, 22-cv-00251-MIS-DLM.

Are you a Southwestern dairy farmer?
If you are or were a dairy farmer located in New Mexico, Texas, southwestern Kansas, eastern Arizona, or the Oklahoma panhandle since 2015, please contact us.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at bdclark@locklaw.com, sjteti@locklaw.com or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

Dairy Farms 22-cv-00251 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
2022-04-04 [1] Othart Dairy Farms, LLC et al v. Dairy Farmers Of America, Inc. et al Complaint
Top U.S. Dairy Co-Op Hit With Antitrust Lawsuit Over Farmer Pay
Dairy Farmers File Class Action against Southwest Dairy Cooperatives Alleging Violations of Sherman Act
Dairy producers file class action complaint in Southwest
New Mexico dairy farmers allege price fixing in antitrust suit against cooperatives
Dairy collectives must face farmers’ milk price-fixing lawsuit, US judge rules

Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation

/by

Background

Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been at historically high prices for the last several years. Businesses nationwide have been feeling the effects, paying more at the pump to fuel the vehicles they rely upon for their livelihoods. Running a business, especially one that depends on highly cost-variable inputs like fuel, is difficult and risky under the best of circumstances.

On behalf of businesses nationwide, Lockridge Grindal Nauen has filed a lawsuit alleging that beginning in or around January 2021, the prices that businesses nationwide have paid for gasoline and diesel fuel have been artificially inflated as a result of a conspiracy between the largest shale oil producers in the United States. The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy not only between those producers, but also with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly referred to as OPEC.

Shale oil is a high-quality crude oil found between layers of shale rock, impermeable mudstone, or siltstone. It can be extracted, refined, and used to produce, among other things, gasoline and diesel fuel. Shale oil is produced by fracturing the rock formations that contain the layers of oil in a process known as hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as “fracking.” Crude oil is the main input into gasoline and diesel fuel, and approximately 90% of variation in the price of these fuels is directly related to the price of crude oil.

The lawsuit alleges that OPEC initially declared a “price war” on the large American shale oil producers, by attempting to drive oil prices low enough so as to render American fracking economically unviable. After those efforts failed, OPEC and those producers slowly began to collude in an effort to drive oil prices higher for all involved in the conspiracy. By 2018, the large American producers bragged about having “a seat at the table on pricing” with OPEC. In early 2020, the oil market experienced the shock and unprecedented price declines brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. By early 2021, demand for gasoline and diesel fuel was surging. Defendants, the large American shale producers, should have seized the opportunity to ramp up production to take advantage of increasingly high prices. Yet against their own economic self-interest, those producers preached “discipline” and limited their production.

The lawsuit alleges that they did so in furtherance of their conspiracy, the result of which was to drive up gasoline and diesel fuel prices for purchasers including businesses. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on January 24, 2024, and is captioned These Paws Were Made for Walkin’ LLC v. Permian Resources Corp., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00164. The defendants are Permian Resources Corp. (f/k/a Centennial Resource Development, Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp., and Pioneer Natural Resources Co.

Do you own a business that purchased gasoline or diesel fuel since 2021?

If you own a business that purchased gasoline or diesel fuel since 2021, please contact us.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at bdclark@locklaw.com, sjteti@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

2024-01-24 These Paws Were Made for Walkin’ LLC v. Permian Resources Corp., Centennial Resource Development, Inc. et al Complaint

Fragrance Antitrust Litigation

/by
SUMMARY

In June 2023, Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed an antitrust class action on behalf of our clients and a proposed class alleging that the world’s largest fragrance manufacturers colluded to entered into an unlawful agreement to increased prices charged to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class for Fragrances. Here, Fragrances are defined as chemical or aroma compounds that are added to consumer goods to impart a pleasant order to the finished product and deliver a pleasant experience to the end user.

Background

The fragrance producers named as defendants in this case are Firmenich SA, Firmenich Incorporated, Agilex Flavors & Fragrance, Inc., Givaudan SA, Givaudan Fragrances Corporation, Givaudan Roure (United States) Inc., Ungerer &Company, Inc., Custom Essence Incorporated, and International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (“IFF”), Symrise AG, and Symrise Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that beginning no later than 2018, the defendant Fragrance producers secretly coordinated with each other on their pricing policy for customers, allocated certain customers, and coordinated supply restraints for Fragrances with the purpose and effect of increasing prices charged to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class for Fragrances.

Were you affected by the alleged Fragrance conspiracy?


If you purchased Fragrance between 2018 forward from any of the above companies or their subsidiaries, you may have overpaid.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Simeon Morbey at (bdclark@locklaw.com), (samorbey@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

  1. Complaint