Steven J. Greenfogel is one of the country’s most experienced antitrust class action litigators. Over the course of his more than 40-year legal career, he has played a key role in many of the most significant multidistrict antitrust price fixing class action cases of modern times.
Steve’s practice is national in scope and runs the gamut of industries, from consumer electronics and manufacturing, to food and beverages and college sports. For example, he has served as co-lead counsel in In re Industrial Silicon Antitrust Litigation, 95-2104 (W.D. Pa.), In re Chain Link Antitrust Litigation, Master File CLF-1 (D. Md), and In re Isostatic Graphite Antitrust Litigation, No. 2000-cv-4965 (E.D. Pa.). Most recently, he was named as a co-lead counsel in Gordon, et al v. Amadeus IT Group SA, et al (the “GDS” antitrust litigation), 15-cv-05457-KPF (S.D.N.Y.). He served as co-chair of discovery in O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n et al., Cv-091967 cw (N.D. Cal.) and In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. MDL 878 (N.D.Fla); in this latter case, he also served as one of plaintiff’s trial counsel, ultimately negotiating a favorable settlement following jury selection.
“To pursue a successful class action case and maximize recoveries,” says Steve, “a lawyer must be able to focus with laser-like precision on the key issues in the matter, work closely and cooperatively with fellow counsel, and never lose sight of the clients’ ultimate objectives.”
Throughout his career, Steve has held key positions of responsibility in major, multidistrict class action matters, including serving as one of the main trial counsel and co-chair of discovery in In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, No. 00-MD-1368 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.), which was tried to verdict, and In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, MDL 940 (M.D.Fla.), which settled after jury selection. He has also served as a member of plaintiffs’ executive committee in numerous cases, including, among others, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1950 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Cv-1819 (N.D. Cal. 2007), and In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1631 (D. Ct. 2004).
His work in other multidistrict antitrust class actions of note includes the following, among other cases:
From 1977 to 1980, Steve served as an Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was the first chief of its Antitrust Division. While serving in this capacity, Steve authored the Commonwealth's Antitrust Law (M.G.L. 93).
Steve is a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, a Trial Lawyer Honorary Society. He has been selected ten times as one of the Top Attorneys in Pennsylvania by Philadelphia magazine and holds an "AV" rating from Martindale-Hubbell. Steve has been named a "Pennsylvania Super Lawyer" each year since 2006. He was also named in ALM's 2012 "New Jersey's Top Rated Lawyers" list in the category of Class Actions.
While an assistant attorney general in Massachusetts, he also was a panelist at the New England Antitrust Conference in Boston. Since that time, he has spoken on antitrust matters at various venues and before legal and industry associations.
Actively involved in education issues, Steve has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Camden County College since 2000, having been appointed to that position by four New Jersey governors, including Christine Todd Whitman, Jim McGreevey, Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.
Steve is a member of the New Jersey-Israel Commission, which was established in 1989 to implement the goals of the Sister State Agreement.
In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1950 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Cv-1819 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1827 (N.D. Cal.)
In re Direct Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-cv-01486-OHG (N.D. Cal.)
In re Brand Names Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, MDL 997 (N.D. Ill.)
In re NASDAQ Market Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1023 (S.D.N.Y.)
In re Commercial Tissue Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1189 (N.D. Fla.)
Superior Beverage/Glass Container Antitrust Litigation, 89 C 5251 (N.D. Ill.)
In re Chlorine and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, No. 86-5428 (E.D. Pa.)
In re Records and Tapes Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.)
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ga.)
In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, No. 00-MD-1368 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.)
In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, MDL 940 (M.D.Fla.)
Bruce D. Greenberg has been selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 for his work in Appellate Law.
Steven J. Greenfogel, of the Firm’s Philadelphia office, has been named to the 2017 list of "Pennsylvania Super Lawyers" in the area of antitrust litigation.¹
Steven J. Greenfogel and Mindee J. Reuben, of the Firm’s Philadelphia office, have been named to the 2016 list of "Pennsylvania Super Lawyers" in the area of antitrust litigation.¹
Steven J. Greenfogel has been selected to the Editorial Advisory Board for Law360’s Competition section. The Editorial Advisory Board consists of prominent practitioners in the area of antitrust law.
Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador was mentioned in an article in The AmLaw Daily as one of the firms representing plaintiffs in the Olympus securities fraud litigation. Steven J. Greenfogel of the firm's Philadelphia office is leading the firm's efforts in that case.
¹The Super Lawyers List is issued by Thompson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found at www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process_detail.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. See Award Methodology.
June 20, 2019
A Rare Win For Consumers
Last week, the Ninth Circuit, en banc reinstated a class settlement in the Hyundai/Kia Fuel Economy Litigation. The Court upended sitting a ruling by a three-judge panel that had upheld objections to the proposed settlement. Several important concepts regarding settlement classes were reaffirmed in this ruling.
December 20, 2018
An Eye-Opening Class Certification Ruling
Earlier this month, Judge Harvey Schlesinger of the Middle District of Florida granted class certification in a 178-page opinion in the Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation. The case alleges that the four major manufacturers conspired with one another and with their distributors and independent eye care professionals to establish minimum pricing for certain types of contact lenses. Plaintiffs sought class certification for a horizontal conspiracy as well as a series of classes as to each defendant alleging a vertical conspiracy between each defendant and its distributors and eye care professionals.
May 24, 2018
"There's Gambling Going on Here? Shocking!" "Your Winnings, Sir"
In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, it has been found that the Congressional permanent ban on sports betting, for those States that did not adopt it by a certain date, was unconstitutional. The decision, Murphy v. NCAA, originally brought by New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, will have a significant impact on far more than sports betting. In fact, it draws a line as to how far Congress can go in imposing laws on individual State governmental bodies.
February 8, 2018
Class Action Settlements Under Assault
Ever since the Supreme Court decided Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), the use of the class action vehicle to settle litigation has become more and more problematic. There, the Court found that, even in a settlement context, a district court had to consider all of the Rule 23 (a) and (b)(3) factors (other than management issues at trial) in determining whether class certification of a settlement agreement is appropriate.
October 12, 2017
The Blue Cross/Blue Shield Conundrum
When is an association of companies a single entity for the purpose of the antitrust laws and, if they are separate companies, can they limit how they compete against one another? That is the basic question that will be answered in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation which has been centralized for pretrial purposes in the Northern District of Alabama, a case in which our Firm is playing a prominent role.
June 22, 2017
Generic Drugs - A grand conspiracy?
In 2016, the news that the Department of Justice was investigating the incredible increase in the prices of off-patent generic drugs brought about the filing of several suits accusing pharmaceutical companies of fixing prices on Digoxin and Doxycycline. The news regarding the investigation followed headlines from Congressional hearings that showed that the prices of these drugs, which had been on the market for a long time and could be manufactured by any pharmaceutical company, were suddenly being subjected to massive price increases (some more than 1000%). The DOJ investigation, coupled with a parallel investigation by a multistate task force of State Attorneys General led by the Attorney General of Connecticut, brought a great deal of attention to this unusual pricing behavior.
March 2, 2017
Class Action "Reform"
A Bill titled the "Fairness In Class Action Litigation Act of 2017" is now making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives, where it will undoubtedly pass without change and move on to the Senate for more serious consideration. As an attorney whose practice is almost exclusively involved in prosecuting class actions, I view the Bill in its present form as a clear effort by the Big Business lobby to kill, once and for all, class actions as a means of redress for American consumers and others who have been harmed by illegal actions of the business community.
November 10, 2016
Musings from a Trial
Over the past three weeks, I have had the pleasure of monitoring an antitrust case in the Southern District of New York that is very similar to a class action antitrust case in which Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador, LLC is co-lead counsel. Aside from the fact that I have to travel from South Jersey to Lower Manhattan and arrive before 9:30 AM (which is no easy task), I get to sit back and watch two excellent teams of lawyers put their skills on display before a very competent jurist.
August 11, 2016
Musings From The Left Coast: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Last month, I attended the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) hearing in Seattle. The Panel, consisting of seven federal judges (both District and Circuit Court judges), meets approximately six times per year at various (mostly delightful) locations throughout the country. The hearings always take place on a Thursday, giving the Panel members (and the attorneys who are attending the Panel) an opportunity to spend a long weekend in a venue that most of us would consider a prime vacation spot.
April 21, 2016
The Pirates of the Class Action World
Most often, when anyone thinks about class actions (to the extent that anyone ever does), scorn is heaped on plaintiffs' lawyers for receiving huge fees and getting little for the parties who were actually injured by the illegal acts of defendants. Quite often the reality is rather different. Many lawyers studiously avoid class action practice for the very reason that it is extremely difficult, requires extensive investments in time and costs and returns nothing in the event that the case is not won or settled. Even when a case does get resolved favorably, it doesn't end there. The professional objectors then come out in force to tax the settlement and any potential fees that may be awarded.
January 21, 2016
Three Little Piggies
And then there were three. In February 2006, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the European Union, and various individual international antitrust bodies began an investigation into whether the vast majority of international air carriers were involved in a conspiracy to raise prices for air cargo services throughout the world. The investigation began when Lufthansa, pursuant to various amnesty programs, revealed that it had been participating in a long-term price-fixing agreement with its competitors. While several different methods were used to raise prices, the primary vehicle was an agreed-upon imposition of a jet fuel surcharge that bore no relationship to the actual fuel price increases being experienced by the airline industry. As a result of these governmental actions, over $3 billion in fines were paid, including the imposition by the U.S. Department of Justice of fines exceeding $1.8 billion. Four airline executives went to prison. This resolved one of the largest criminal conspiracies in international cartel practice ever uncovered.
July 30, 2015
Turmoil in the World of College Sports
Since the last time that I wrote about O'Bannon v NCAA, several developments of interest have taken place. On March 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on Judge Wilken's findings that the NCAA's rules prohibiting payment to college athletes for the use of their name image and likeness rights violated the Sherman Act. The injunction issued by Judge Wilken, allowed schools to offer full cost of attendance and up to $5,000 per year in deferred payments to student athletes. Judge Wilken denied the NCAA's motion to stay the injunction pending the appeal. Around two weeks ago, the NCAA asked the Ninth Circuit to enter a stay of the injunction pending their ruling on the appeal. Last Friday, the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the disposition of the appeal.
February 10, 2015
When The NCAA Ran Out Of Lucky Charms
March 17 is St. Patrick’s Day, a time for carousing and all-around good fun. It’s also the day on which the Ninth Circuit will hear the NCAA’s appeal in the O’Bannon litigation, perhaps the most important piece of sports litigation in the last thirty years. [Disclosure: I am one of the counsel for O’Bannon and the class in this case]. Originally brought in 2009 under antitrust theories which alleged price fixing of college Grant-in-Aids, O’Bannon is really human rights litigation challenging the “field hand” status of college athletes forced to work for nothing while universities, operating under the umbrella of the NCAA, profited from the free labor of the young football and basketball players.