We have substantial experience in bringing antitrust cases on behalf of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' cases have been brought by Honigman against some of the largest and best known corporations in the world. Representative cases include:

  • St. Luke’s Hospital, et al. v. ProMedica Health System, Inc., et al. Challenge to anticompetitive actions by dominant hospital system.
  • BRFHH Shreveport v. Willis-Knighton. Challenge to threatened agreements between hospital and medical school practice.
  • BRFHH Shreveport v. Willis-Knighton. Claim of coercion of hospital medical staff in order to suppress cooperation with hospital and thereby to harm competition.
  • Trinity Health Corporation v. Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor, PLLC. (E.D. Mich.) Antitrust challenge to noncompete clauses covering hospital-based physicians at 6 hospitals.
  • Saint Alphonsus v. St. Luke's Health System, Ltd. Challenge to hospital acquisition of physician practice.
  • Compuware v. IBM Corporation. Compuware alleged that IBM monopolized and/or attempted to monopolize certain mainframe software "tools" markets and engaged in unlawful tying in these markets.
  • Kerasotes v. National Amusements. Honigman brought antitrust claims on behalf of a regional theater chain, alleging that the National Amusements chain had conspired with major national film distributors to obtain exclusive first-run showings of films.
  • Radio Distributing Co. v. Armstrong World Industries. Radio Distributing, a flooring distributor, alleged that Armstrong World Industries tied sales of its dominant resilient floor-covering products to sales of its carpet products.
  • Olender v. International Multifoods. Olender, a flour distributor, claimed International Multifoods discriminated in the price it charged for flour.
  • In the Matter of Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. Transamerica Title Insurance Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company intervened in a Michigan Insurance Bureau proceeding alleging violations of state antikickback laws and antitrust laws.
  • Helmac Products v. Roth Plastics. Helmac sued Roth under the Antidumping Act of 1916, alleging that Roth sold products in the U.S. at prices substantially below those at which it sold in Canada.
  • Unisys v. TRW. This antitrust counterclaim involved allegations of patent misuse leading to antitrust violations in the market for computerized check processing systems.
  • Union Tire Co. v. Dunlap Tire & Rubber. Robinson-Patman claim brought on behalf of tire distributor.
  • Easton v. NCAA. Claim of antitrust violations by National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) through restrictions on the use of bats in NCAA competition.
  • Great Scott v. Farmer Jack. Claim of antitrust violation in the acquisition of supermarkets.
  • Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Domtar, Inc. Claim under Robinson-Patman Act and Antidumping Act of 1916.
  • Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Michigan Milk Producers Assn. Monopolization claim relating to milk marketing.
  • First American Title Company v. DeVaugh. Monopolization claims brought on behalf of title insurers against Michigan registers of deeds.
  • Health Alliance Plan of Michigan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Company. Claim arising out of most favored nations clauses. 
  • Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, et al. v. Glencore AG, et al. (S.D. N.Y.) Claim alleging collusion among firms engaged in storage of aluminum.

Connect with a Professional

Jump to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.