• PDF
  • Bookmark and Share

Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation

McCarter & English defends businesses against class action, multidistrict, and other multi-claimant litigation around the country, with a particular focus on cases alleging violations of the New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), as well as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). These types of cases have become more and more prevalent, the cost to defend against them can be exorbitant, and the cost to your business even if you win can be crippling. McCarter has decades of experience defending against class actions, does it cost-effectively, and knows how to minimize the overall impact on your business.

We are leaders in the field and have experience settling, trying and appealing hundreds of cases in the state and federal courts. Our record speaks for itself in consumer fraud, ERISA, products liability, financial services, securities fraud, labor and employment, antitrust, intellectual property and mass tort claims. In recent news, McCarter & English represented AstraZeneca in the Seroquel® class actions, helping the global pharmaceutical company settle the cases for one-fifth the cost of similar cases.

We also have deep subject matter knowledge and work hard to understand your business and the underlying issues. For example, in the pharmaceutical, medical device and healthcare industries, our products liability and mass tort work is supported by a Ph.D.-led science group, which counsels on the medical and scientific aspects of evidence and identifies world-renowned experts.

We help corporations and nonprofits to successfully defend class actions and multidistrict litigations involving the full range of potential claims, including, with respect to:

Breach of Warranty/Breach of Fiduciary Duty 
Consumer Protection
Employment Benefits and ERISA
Labor and Employment

Life Sciences

Representative Matters

Defended Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims in multidistrict litigation (MDL) venued in the Eastern District of Louisiana brought by a nationwide class of direct purchasers and a class of indirect purchasers. Plaintiffs alleged that our client had conspired with three other companies to fix prices and restrict distribution of its products. The court dismissed the horizontal conspiracy claims, but allowed secondary vertical conspiracy claims to proceed. After fact discovery, we settled the direct purchaser claims for $6.5 million and the indirect purchaser claims for $1.5 million, less than 1 percent of what was originally sought (after trebling).
Served as co-counsel in defense of our client’s Hatch-Waxman Act settlements with generic manufacturers from multiple MDL antitrust class actions. The classes, consisting of end users, distributors and retailers, claimed that its settlements with generic manufacturers harmed competition and artificially delayed the entry of a generic bioequivalent. This “pay for delay” case was the first to reach trial since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis. A Massachusetts jury found that there was no causation between the settlements and no proof that a generic could have entered the market earlier than the date permitted under the settlements.
Serve as New Jersey counsel in defense of a class action by pharmaceutical purchasers claiming that pricing violates federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws.