The Kehoe Law Firm, a leading national law firm specializing in antitrust and consumer protection litigation, has filed a civil antitrust action against Google under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of the Sterling International Consulting Group and those similarly situated, alleges that Google has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the Publisher Ad Server Market, resulting in artificially inflated prices for publisher ad server services.​

The plaintiff in this case operates a website that sells digital display ads to advertisers. The complaint contends that Google has established and maintained a monopoly in the Publisher Ad Server Market, giving it the power to manipulate prices charged to Publishers, such as the plaintiffs.​

According to John A. Kehoe, a partner at the Kehoe Law Firm, “Google’s anticompetitive actions have had a significant impact on the Publisher Ad Server Market, leading to higher costs for Publishers and limiting their options. This case aims to address the harm caused by Google’s dominance and seeks compensatory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.”​

The complaint outlines Google’s control over various levels of the Ad Tech Stack, including publisher ad server products, ad exchange, ad network, and advertiser ad server. It alleges that Google’s series of anticompetitive acts, dating back to at least 2007, have illegally enhanced and maintained its dominant position in the Publisher Ad Server Market.​

The complaint alleges that Google’s acquisitions, exclusionary conduct, and measures to impair potential rivals have stifled competition and harmed plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The complaint seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm, a leading national law firm specializing in antitrust and consumer protection litigation, has filed a civil antitrust action against Google under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of the Sterling International Consulting Group and those similarly situated, alleges that Google has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the Publisher Ad Server Market, resulting in artificially inflated prices for publisher ad server services.​

The plaintiff in this case operates a website that sells digital display ads to advertisers. The complaint contends that Google has established and maintained a monopoly in the Publisher Ad Server Market, giving it the power to manipulate prices charged to Publishers, such as the plaintiffs.​

According to John A. Kehoe, a partner at the Kehoe Law Firm, “Google’s anticompetitive actions have had a significant impact on the Publisher Ad Server Market, leading to higher costs for Publishers and limiting their options. This case aims to address the harm caused by Google’s dominance and seeks compensatory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.”​

The complaint outlines Google’s control over various levels of the Ad Tech Stack, including publisher ad server products, ad exchange, ad network, and advertiser ad server. It alleges that Google’s series of anticompetitive acts, dating back to at least 2007, have illegally enhanced and maintained its dominant position in the Publisher Ad Server Market.​

The complaint alleges that Google’s acquisitions, exclusionary conduct, and measures to impair potential rivals have stifled competition and harmed plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The complaint seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

Kehoe Law Firm is pleased to announce that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted preliminary approval for the proposed settlement in the Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation.​

The case, brought on behalf of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Pension Plan (“SEPTA”), among others, alleges that from January 1, 2006, through April 19, 2017, inclusive, various entities conspired to fix the prices for Mexican Government Bonds issued by the Mexican government through the Bank of Mexico (“Banxico”). 

According to a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, each defendant transacted in price-fixed Mexican Government Bonds (“MGBs”) at artificial prices with uninformed market participants like SEPTA and the Class. Defendants allegedly did so through interrelated means of manipulation. 

Partner John A. Kehoe expressed his satisfaction in being part of the case on behalf of the Plaintiffs, stating, “We are pleased to have reached this partial settlement in the Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation. The preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is a positive step toward achieving justice for our clients and the Settlement Class.”​

The settlement class includes all persons who entered a MGB transaction between January 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017. The Settlement, subject to final approval, involves the certification and maintenance of the settlement class as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Settling defendants include Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Capital Securities Limited, Barclays Bank México, S.A., Institución de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero Barclays México, and Grupo Financiero Barclays México, S.A. de C.V. (collectively “ Barclays” ) and JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Broker-Dealer Holdings Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Banco J.P. Morgan, S.A. Institución de Banca Múltiple, J.P. Morgan Grupo Financiero, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc.​

Importantly, many other defendants have not joined in the settlement, including entities related to Bank of America, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC, among others. For further information about the case, please visit www.MGBAntitrustSettlement.com.​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm is delighted to announce that Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), along with co-plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Retirement System, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103, I.B.E.W., Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan Master Trust, Boston Retirement System, Government Employees Retirement System of the Virgin Islands, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund (collectively “Plaintiffs”), has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Mexican Government Bonds antitrust litigation.​

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, represents Plaintiffs and all individuals involved in a Mexican Government Bond (“MGB”) transaction between January 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017. It alleges that during this period, the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices for Mexican Government Bonds issued by the Mexican government through the Bank of Mexico (“Banxico”). 

The complaint asserts that the defendants executed transactions involving pricefixed MGBs at artificial prices, impacting uninformed market participants such as Plaintiffs and the Class. The alleged manipulation was reportedly conducted through various interconnected means.​

KLF Partner John A. Kehoe expressed his satisfaction with the progress, stating, “We are extremely pleased to file the Second Amended Complaint on behalf of our esteemed clients, including SEPTA. This collective action seeks justice for all those affected by the alleged antitrust violations related to Mexican Government Bonds. Furthermore, it is gratifying to report that we have already achieved a partial settlement, notably with entities associated with Barclays PLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co., who have committed $20.7 million to a settlement fund pending final court approval.”​

A copy of the complaint is available here: https://www.mgbantitrustsettlement.com/​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

On behalf of our client FX Primus Ltd., Kehoe Law Firm is pleased to announce that today the court granted final approval to the $23,630,000 settlement in the FX indirect purchaser litigation. The lawsuit against various Wall Street banks, alleges that defendants conspired to fix the prices of foreign currency instruments causing settlement class members to be overcharged when directly purchasing from or directly selling to a retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”) an FX instrument, where that RFED transacted in an FX instrument directly with a defendant.​

Defendants include entities related to Citigroup, MUFG Bank Ltd., Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (now known as NatWest Markets PLC), and UBS AG. The settlements include statewide settlement classes from New York, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina.​

The defendants collectively paid $23,630,000 of settlements into a fund to be disbursed to the members of the settlement classes. You must file a valid and timely claim to get money from the settlements. You may get a Claim Form by visiting www.FXIndirectAntitrustSettlement.com or by contacting the Settlement Administrator toll-free number: 1-844-245-3777.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

Kehoe Law Firm proudly announces that today plaintiffs moved for final approval of a $23,600,000 settlement with various Wall Street banks, including entities related to Citigroup, MUFG Bank Ltd., Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (now known as NatWest Markets PLC), and UBS AG.​

KLF represents FX Primus Ltd. In this action, in which lead counsel spent over 11,427 hours prosecuting the case. Discovery in this case was extensive, involving terabytes of transactional data and hundreds of thousands of pages of interbank chat transcripts from defendants that they produced in a related action. Managing and organizing this data required collaborating with Plaintiffs’ expert economist, Dr. Janet S. Netz, to analyze the contents of the data for each defendant transactional data production and prepare questions to Defendants to ensure that all required data fields were included in the productions and standardized across all Defendant productions. 

Class Counsel also consulted with an industry expert and former FX trader to analyze and identify deficiencies in Defendants’ data productions and to prepare questions to Defendants. He also assisted Class Counsel with interpreting the jargon and code words that dealer bank traders used to conceal their unlawful conduct in the voluminous interbank dealer chat transcripts produced by Defendants. 

While discovery was ongoing, class counsel had extensive settlement negotiations, and reached a tentative settlement with the Citigroup defendants, then with MUFG Bank Ltd., including cash payments and reasonable cooperation in the continued litigation.  Thereafter, the remaining defendants agreed to settle.

We believe the settlements were negotiated at arm’s length, and the relief obtained is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The proposed pro-rata method of allocating the settlement fund amongst the members of the settlement classes ensures that they will be treated equitably relative to each other. The Total Settlement Amount of $23,630,000 is well within the range of reasonableness, especially considering the complexity of the litigation, and the risks of establishing liability, aggregate damages, and class wide impact.​

Considering the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the Court has scheduled the Final Fairness Hearing to occur telephonically on November 17, 2020, at 11:30 am. 

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

Today, the Kehoe Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit against Magellan Health, Inc. alleging the inadequate safeguarding of personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of its current and former employees, as well as health plan participants. Magellan Health recently experienced a targeted cyberattack and data breach, resulting in the reported compromise of PII and PHI for plaintiffs and over 365,000 class members.​

The compromised information, including names, contact details, employee ID numbers, W-2 or 1099 information, Social Security Numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, treatment details, health insurance account information, member IDs, and other health-related data, is now alleged to be in the hands of cyberthieves. The complaint further alleges that Magellan Health’s reckless and negligent maintenance of this sensitive information on its computer network left it vulnerable to cyberattacks. 

Michael Yarnoff of the Kehoe Law Firm emphasized the significance of personal information and the responsibility of corporations to protect it, stating, “In an era where personal data is increasingly under threat, corporations must prioritize the protection of sensitive information. The allegations against Magellan Health underscore the importance of robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard personal and health-related details.” 

Plaintiffs contend that Magellan Health failed to provide timely and adequate notice of the unauthorized access, exposing them to the risk of identity theft and fraud. The lawsuit seeks various remedies, including compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, restitution, and injunctive relief. The latter includes demands for enhancements to the defendant’s data security systems, annual audits, and funded credit monitoring services. 

The legal claims against Magellan Health include negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, violation of New York’s General Business Law § 349, violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, violation of Virginia’s Personal Information Breach Notification Act, and violation of Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact Michael Yarnoff at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.