'2010 Legal 500 US' Recognizes Heins Mills & Olson for Antitrust Class Actions

The Legal 500 US, which ranks "the best of the best" law firms in the country based on comments from clients and peers, again placed Heins Mills on its list of the leading firms in antitrust class action litigation. As noted in the 2006 Legal 500 US rankings, Heins Mills "is recommended by clients for its 'very professional' and 'very aggressive' style of representation, 'excellent customer service,' and 'willingness to respond to inquiries and requests almost immediately.'" Read more...

Working to Ensure Competitive Markets and Fair Trade Practices

In the arena of antitrust litigation, Heins Mills has served as lead or co-lead counsel in dozens of cases representing plaintiff classes alleging price-fixing, vertical trade restraints, monopolization and other anti-competitive conduct in diverse markets.

We recently served as co-lead counsel and co-lead trial counsel in In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, (MDL No. 1516, W.D.N.C.), a price-fixing action on behalf of business purchasers of polyester staple fiber. The case was settled on the eve of trial, scheduled to begin in March 2008, bringing the total recovery from all defendants to $63 million - an amount exceeding single damages suffered by the class.

Currently serve as co-lead counsel in In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1960 D.P.R.) which involves price-fixing by Jones Act shipping companies for ocean shipping services between the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

Served as co-lead counsel and co-lead trial counsel in In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1368, S.D.N.Y), where we tried a price-fixing case to verdict on behalf of businesses that purchased high-pressure laminates. We ultimately recovered $40.5 million in settlement payments from several of the defendant manufacturers.

Currently serving as co-lead counsel in Katz v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. (N.D. Ohio) which involves antitrust claims against the largest title insurers in Ohio (in coordination with other state cases) for price-fixing the price of title insurance in Ohio.

Currently serving as co-lead counsel in In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1957, N.D.Ill.) alleging antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition claims against leading manufacturers of replacement vehicle filters on behalf of indirect purchasers from multiple states.

We were one of two lead counsel firms representing a class comprising business purchasers of food additives in In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1328, D. Minn.). We negotiated settlements with the defendants totaling $123.4 million—an amount exceeding the single damages suffered by the class.

We are one of three co-lead counsel in In re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation (MDL No. 1468, D. Kan.), representing business and residential customers nationwide alleging a conspiracy to fix USF surcharges and breach of contract claims against long-distance telephone companies. The November 2008 trial resulted in a verdict for the class, now on appeal.

We are co-lead counsel for a class of cable subscribers in Behrend v. Comcast Corp. (E.D.Pa.), alleging unlawful restraint of trade and monopoly practices in several cable TV markets. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified classes in the Philadelphia and Chicago areas, both of which were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In related antitrust litigation against Comcast, we asked the Untied States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to strike down class action bans contained in the arbitration clauses of cable subscriber agreements in the Boston area. In a significant vicotry for consumers, the First Circuit held that the class action bans are unenforceable because they prevent consumer plaintiffs from vindicating their rights under federal antitrust laws. See Kristian v. Comcast Corp. and Rogers v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006).

As co-lead counsel in In re Bulk Graphite Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.), we represented a nationwide class of business purchasers alleging price-fixing claims against manufacturers of bulk graphite. We recently reached a settlement exceeding the amount of single damages sustained by the class.

We are one of the co-lead counsel leading the In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.), a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy by manufacturers to fix the price of publication paper.

We served as lead trial counsel for a class of travel agents in In re Travel Agency Commission Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1058, D. Minn.), which alleged that major domestic airlines conspired to fix agent commissions. The claims were settled on the eve of trial for a total of $86 million.

We were co-lead counsel for classes of consumers in price-fixing actions brought in seventeen states against infant formula manufacturers. The cases were settled collectively for $64 million in cash and infant formula products.

Among judges, clients and peers, Heins Mills enjoys a reputation for its aggressive and skillful advocacy in antitrust litigation of national and international import. For example, the judge presiding over the multidistrict litigation in In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation, Hon. Paul A. Magnuson, said of our work as co-lead counsel: "I'll make no bones about this, I think this is as fine a job of plaintiff lawyering as I've ever seen,... I particularly take my hat off to the plaintiffs' counsel here."