Nathaniel C. Giddings

EXPERIENCE

Antitrust/Competition

• In re Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents a putative class of direct purchasers of broadcast television advertising. The class alleges that television broadcast station owners exchanged competitively sensitive information and fixed prices for broadcast television advertising in certain designated market areas in the United States, causing class members to pay higher prices for their advertisements.
• In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents a class of direct (over-the-counter) purchasers of certain financial instruments linked to LIBOR. The class alleges that the banks setting this rate conspired with one another to suppress the LIBOR during the global financial crisis, which resulted in class members receiving less money on their investments.
• In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents classes of consumers who purchased certain disposable contact lenses. The classes allege that the four leading contact lens manufacturers conspired among themselves and others to adopt, implement, and enforce resale price maintenance policies on these contact lenses, and as a result, that these contact lens wearers paid higher prices for their contact lenses.
• In re Foreign Exchange Benchmarks Rates Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represented market participants in the foreign exchange market against international banks alleged to have fixed the price of foreign exchange instruments.
• In re: Concrete and Cement Additives Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents a class of direct purchasers of concrete and cement admixtures in a price fixing conspiracy MDL between the world’s largest manufacturers of concrete, cement, and mortar admixtures.

• In re CCELL Closed Cannabis Oil Vaporization Systems and Components Products Litigation - Hausfeld represents direct purchasers alleging that Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd. (Smoore)  and its authorized distributors conspired to fix the prices for CCELL-branded vapes and components and to not compete for each other’s CCELL customers in violation of the Sherman Act. The direct purchasers allege that the defendants’ agreement artificially inflated the prices paid by direct purchasers of these products.

Commercial & Financial Disputes

• Niewinski v. State Farm Insurance – Nathaniel represents a class of purchasers of certain universal life insurance policies sold by State Farm. The class alleges that State Farm improperly computed its cost of insurance rates on these policies, causing the cash values of class members’ policies to be diminished.
• MTB Investment Partners, LP v. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. – Nathaniel represented sellers of HearUSA stock who alleged that the defendant artificially depressed the price of the stock in order to acquire the company at below market price.
• Brown v. Transurban USA, Inc. – Nathaniel represented users of high-occupancy tolls lanes (so-called “HOT lanes”) in Virginia that were assessed significant fines without being provided with adequate notice from the private toll road operator.

E-Discovery

• Nathaniel is a member of The Sedona Conference, Working Group 1 (Electronic Document Retention and Production)