Gary I. Smith Jr.

Partner
Philadelphia

he / him / his

OVERVIEW

Experience

Gary focuses his practice on antitrust litigation. In his young career, he has already secured over $900 million to benefit the victims of anticompetitive practices. Gary has litigated cases at every level, from state trial court all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, through which he has gained a wide range of experience briefing and arguing dispositive motions, taking and defending fact and expert witness depositions, and serving on trial teams, inclusive of first- and second-chair jury trial experience. He has challenged monopolistic practices and cartel activity in a wide range of industries - from the agricultural sector to the transportation and aviation sectors to the financial markets - with a particular emphasis on healthcare, where Gary has litigated cases concerning biologics (vaccines), pharmaceuticals, and medical product distribution markets.

Gary is also committed to serving the community through pro bono work. Most recently, he has been working with a team of Hausfeld lawyers to advise victims of clergy sexual abuse who have received settlement offers from the Philadelphia Archdiocese. For this and other pro bono work, Gary and Hausfeld’s Philadelphia office received the Philadelphia Bar Foundation’s 2019 Pro Bono Award.

Clients

Gary has represented a diverse range of clientele, including hospitals and hospital systems, dental laboratories, pediatricians, universities, local governments, investment and pension funds, advertising agencies, farmers, and construction contractors.

- In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation – in which a proposed class of broiler chicken farmers (referred to as “Growers”) claim that over twenty of the country’s largest poultry producers, including Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue Farms, Koch Foods, and Sanderson Farms colluded to suppress Grower pay. Settlements have been reached with Tyson ($21 million) and Perdue ($14.75 million), and the litigation continues against the non-settling defendants.
- In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation – In which a proposed class of private dental practices claimed that the four major distributors of dental products and equipment conspired to fix margins, divide markets and allocate customers, and orchestrate industry boycotts of lower-priced, innovative rivals. The Federal Trade Commission filed a related lawsuit against the dental distributor companies a year after the private plaintiffs first initiated their action, borrowing legal theories first investigated and advanced by the private plaintiffs. The private plaintiffs’ action was settled just minutes before a class certification Daubert hearing was set to commence for $80 million.
- In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation – In which a certified class of purchasers of over-the-counter (OTC) financial instruments with interest payments tied to the London Interbank Offering Rate (LIBOR) are challenging the collusive manipulation of U.S. Dollar LIBOR by the world’s largest financial institutions. The collusion is claimed to have suppressed the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate, which allowed the defendant banks to benefit financially to the detriment of their counterparties in OTC instruments. The case has resulted in $590 million in settlements with four banks (Barclays, Citibank, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank), and continues against the remaining thirteen defendant banks.
- Adriana M. Castro, M.D., P.A. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. – In which a certified class of wholesalers, hospitals, and physicians that purchased Sanofi’s quadrivalent conjugate meningococcal vaccine (MCV4) Menactra (a vaccine for Meningitis) claimed that Sanofi monopolized the MCV4 market by threatening large price penalties across Sanofi’s broad line of pediatric vaccines if pediatricians purchased MCV4 vaccines from Sanofi’s only MCV4 rival, Novartis. Sanofi’s conditional pricing practices had the purpose and effect of foreclosing Sanofi’s only MCV4 rival from the market, allowing Sanofi to continue to charge monopoly prices for Menactra. The case settled in December 2016 for $61.5 million.
- In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation – In which a certified class of consumers of transpacific passenger air travel claimed that thirteen airlines conspired to fix the prices of certain air fares and fuel surcharges. The last of the thirteen defendants settled in early 2019 for $58 million, bringing the total settlements in the case to over $147 million.

Gary I. Smith Jr.

OVERVIEW

EDUCATION

BAR ADMISSIONS

AFFILIATIONS

NEWS

Philadelphia Partner Gary Smith, Jr. named to the Legal Intelligencer’s list of 2019 Pennsylvania 'Trailblazers'

Hausfeld honored with the Pro Bono Award of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation

Hausfeld announces record number of promotions globally, demonstrating continued firm growth

EVENTS

AAI Annual Private Antitrust Enforcement Conference

PUBLICATIONS

Ascertainability

WHAT OTHERS SAY

Experience

EUROPA

USA

LEGALS

FOLLOW US