The United States’ antitrust laws benefit consumers by ensuring a free and fair marketplace. United States’ antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq., and their state analogues (e.g., the Connecticut Antitrust Act, § 35-24 et seq.), promote free and fair competition in the marketplace by prohibiting activities such as price-fixing, bid rigging, wage suppression, and market monopolization, among others. SGT's attorneys have extensive experience litigating on behalf of plaintiffs harmed by anticompetitive behavior to enforce federal and state antitrust laws.
Currently, SGT represents lead plaintiff Zoe Borozny in a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against defendants Pratt & Whitney (a division of Raytheon Technologies Corp.) and several aerospace engineer staffing companies alleging that they conspired to restrict competition and suppress wages via “no-poach” agreements in violation of antitrust laws. The case is Borozny et al. v. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division, et al, No.3:21-cv-01657 and is pending before Hon. Sarala V. Nagala in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
SGT also serves as part of a committee along with court-appointed interim co-lead counsel representing direct purchaser plaintiff drug wholesalers Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (“Rochester Co-op”) and Dakota Drug, Inc. (“Dakota Drug”) in a proposed class action alleging that brand-name and generic EpiPen manufacturers and a group of pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) conspired to maintain supracompetitiveprices for brand-name and generic EpiPens. The case is In re EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litigation, No. 20-CV-00827 and is pending before Hon. Eric. C. Tostrud in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Previously, SGT represented a Westport, Connecticut taxi service against the Westport Transit District, claiming that the district had intentionally engaged in monopolistic practices in violation the Connecticut Antitrust Act, § 35-24 et seq. The trial court found that defendants Westport Transit District had gained monopoly power and engaged in predatory pricing by setting its prices not only below cost but substantially below average variable costs, and that the defendant’s pricing was instituted to drive its competitors out of business. The Court awarded treble damages, including lost profits, business value, and prejudgment interest The case was Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, No. CV 79 0041301S (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992)