The firm is actively involved in litigation involving price-fixing and other anti-competitive conduct, deceptive sales practices, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The firm has also represented consumers and consumer classes in multiple class actions involving insurance practices and important consumer protection issues.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP was appointed as Lead Counsel by the Trial Court in the consolidated Massachusetts Indirect Purchaser Actions. The firm was also appointed by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 02-1486 (N.D. Cal.) and is currently litigating the case on behalf of indirect purchasers nationwide. Recoveries for consumers and businesses exceed several hundred million dollars.
In In re Microsoft Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 00-2456 (Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), Gilman and Pastor, LLP litigated this complex litigation and was appointed as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement valued at $34 million, which was granted final approval by the Court.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as Lead Class Counsel in Fortin v. Ajinomoto, et al, (Civil Action No. 02-2345C, Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), and after several years of contested litigation, obtained class settlements totaling $8.2 million. The Court praised the efforts of attorneys Kenneth G. Gilman and Douglas Brooks for their extensive efforts in litigating the difficult case to a successful result.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in Ciardi v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., et al., (Civil Action No. 99-04044, Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), a case that created new law in Massachusetts conferring standing upon indirect purchasers for claims arising from price-fixing or other anti-competitive conduct. Settlement funds valued at over $22.5 million were obtained and distributed to over 400 charitable organizations providing food and nutrition programs in Massachusetts.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel in Boos v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 95-10091 (D.Mass.), which was the first case in which indirect purchasers in Massachusetts ever recovered damages arising from a price-fixing conspiracy. The case was successfully resolved for the class of Massachusetts consumers.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel in Muccioli v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., No. 413148 (San Mateo Cty. California Superior Court) and obtained a substantial nationwide class settlement that provided free service and repairs during an extended warranty period and partial refunds of past repair costs to purchasers of Sony Playstation Models 1001 and 5501 in an action arising out of alleged product defects, breaches of warranty, and deceptive trade practices.
The firm was lead counsel in Hardy v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Civil Action No. 98-CH-06405 (Cook County, Illinois) obtaining a nationwide class settlement which provided warranty repairs to consumers who purchased home improvement services from Sears and its authorized contractors.
The firm was a member of the Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Steering Committee in In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1083, (C.D. Ill.), a complex antitrust suit alleging a price fixing conspiracy on the part of manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup. As a member of the Steering Committee, the firm litigated the case for over five years. That case has now resulted in settlements totaling approximately $500 million.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel for the class in Anslono v. Thorn Americas, Inc. (Civil Action No. 98-0049, Suffolk Superior Court Department, Mass.), and obtained a class settlement of claims for false advertising of “rent to own” contracts.
In In re Packard Bell Consumer Class Action Litigation, No. BC 125671 (California Superior Court), Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as counsel and obtained a substantial settlement for purchasers of “reconditioned” personal computer systems which were falsely advertised as “new.”
Gilman and Pastor served as co-counsel and recovered $39 million dollars for consumers who purchased products containing monosodium glutamate (“MSG”) and nucleotides for price fixing against three defendants: Ajinomoto Co., Inc., CJ Corp., and Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP made new law on behalf of indirect purchaser consumers in the Supreme Judicial Court in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Vitamins Price Fixing Litigation. Settlement funds valued at more than $22.9 Million were obtained and distributed to over 400 charitable organizations providing food and nutrition programs in Massachusetts.
The firm successfully defended Community Federal Savings and Loan Association, who along with State Street Bank and Trust Co., was sued for antitrust and tying violations in connection with major loans made to a major Florida real estate developer. After extensive discovery and a summary trial, the firm succeeded in having its clients, Community Federal, dismissed with no recovery to the plaintiffs.
Gilman and Pastor was appointed as Lead Counsel by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, (E.D. Pa.) to prosecute a case on behalf of consumers and businesses who were the victims of antitrust violations by the manufacturers of oriented strand board (“OSB”), a substitute for plywood. The firm managed fifteen other firms in successfully prosecuting the case against Louisiana Pacific Corp., Georgia Pacific, Ainsworth, J.M. Huber, Weyerhaeuser Company and Norbord upon allegations that the companies artificially reduced the supply of OSB.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP has developed unique expertise in litigation involving pyramid marketing schemes, including obtaining significant decisions in Webster v. Omnitrition, 79 F.3d 776, 782 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that multi-level marketing firm could be found to be a pyramid scheme and an investment security where there was no evidence that it actually enforced “anti-pyramid” requirements; class settlement approved following successful appeal by Gilman and Pastor); Capone v. Nu Skin Canada, Inc. (Case No. 93-C-2855, D.Utah) (Gilman and Pastor obtained court approval of settlement of class claims against multi-level marketing firm after successfully opposing multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and after extensive discovery); Rhodes v. Consumers’ Buyline, Inc., 868 F.Supp. 368 (D.Mass. 1993) (case settled after Gilman and Pastor obtained court ruling that contractual arbitration clause was unenforceable because distributorship agreement violated public policies against pyramid marketing schemes).