Search | Site Map | Contact Us 

► '2006 Legal 500' US Recognizes Heins Mills & Olson
for Antitrust Class Actions

We are proud to announce that the newly published Legal 500 US - Volume III (Litigation) has named Heins Mills & Olson on its list of five leading firms practicing in the area of antitrust class action litigation in the United States.  Sam Heins and Vince Esades are also recognized individually as top litigators in the field.  The firm's profile mentions that Heins Mills & Olson "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.'"  [List]

Working to Ensure Competitive Markets
and Fair Trade Practices

eins Mills & Olson plays a lead role in the representation of plaintiff classes in federal and state antitrust litigation involving price-fixing, vertical trade restraints, and monopolization. The firm has had a central role in class actions filed on behalf of businesses and individuals in various markets, including cable TV services, monosodium glutamate, high pressure laminates, motor vehicles, microprocessors, graphite, acrylates, ready-mixed concrete, telecommunications services, vitamins, compact discs, infant formula, high fructose corn syrup, and the travel agent industry. 

The firm has served as co-lead counsel in a number of antitrust class actions, including litigation against Comcast Corp. alleging monopolistic practices in certain cable service markets.  In two of those cases, we argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to obtain a significant decision for consumers that struck down class action bans imposed by arbitration clauses in Comcast’s cable subscriber agreements in the Boston area.  The First Circuit held that the class action bans are unenforceable because they preclude consumer plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights under the federal antitrust laws.  The court also invalidated provisions in Comcast’s arbitration clauses that prohibit consumers from recovering treble damages and attorney’s fees and costs under federal antitrust statutes. See Kristian v. Comcast Corp. and Rogers v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006).  The ruling was described by commentators as “the most important decision on arbitration law” in 2006, one which “could change the policy landscape surrounding class actions in arbitration.”  The decision has also been lauded as “the first to recognize that [class action] bans deprive plaintiffs of the ability to exercise their statutory rights under federal antitrust law.”
   
We have served as co-lead counsel in the multidistrict consolidation of In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation.  The class of business purchasers alleges combination and conspiracy by the producers of the food flavor enhancers monosodium glutamate ("MSG") and certain nucleotides to fix prices and illegally allocate customers and markets.  We were instrumental in achieving settlements with a number of the defendants in an aggregate amount exceeding $82,000,000.  These settlements represent a recovery for the class of more than 100% of the untrebled damages attributable to these defendants.  Only one corporate defendant remains.  The judge presiding over the multidistrict litigation, Hon. Paul A. Magnuson, had this to say about the work of Heins Mills & Olson: “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.”  MDL 00-1328 (D. Minn.). 

The firm has also been appointed co-lead counsel in another multidistrict consolidation, In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No: 3:03CV1516 (W.D.N.C.).  In that case, the class alleges that defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of polyester staple in violation of federal antitrust laws.  Polyester staple is used in a variety of textile manufacturing operations, including the production of carpets, linens and clothing.  To date, more than $30 million has been recovered from a number of settling defendants.   

The firm also served as co-lead counsel and lead trial counsel in the In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, which alleged price-fixing by manufacturers on behalf of a class of business purchasers, and we are currently a member of Class Counsel’s Executive Committee in In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, a nationwide antitrust case pending in the District of Connecticut (No. 3:04 MD 1631).  That case alleges that manufacturers of publication paper unlawfully conspired to fix prices. 

In addition, we are currently participating as class counsel for consumers, wholesalers, distributors, and original equipment manufacturers in a number of other antitrust cases, including actions against automakers, airlines, telecommunications companies, pharmaceutical firms, and Intel.