Hausfeld continues to lead the US antitrust rankings as a top claimant firm with settlements totaling more than $5.54 billion over 14 years
Hausfeld is proud to have once again been recognized as one of the leading claimant law firms in the US for class recovery in antitrust litigation, according to the new 2022 Antitrust Annual Report from the Center for Litigation and Courts | UC Law SF and The Huntington National Bank, which provides a detailed analysis of the US antitrust litigation market over the past 14 years.
Among the 25 claimant law firms analyzed in the report, Hausfeld is ranked first among lead counsel in amounts recovered, with 121 settlements between 2009 and 2022 totaling over $5.54 billion.
Megan Jones, Co-Chair of the firm’s US Antitrust Practice commented, “We are honored to once again be recognized in this year’s Antitrust Annual Report. These rankings are a result of the hard work and dedication of the talented team of attorneys and staff across our five US offices.”
“Over the last 14 years, Hausfeld has won landmark trials, negotiated complex settlements among dozens of defendants, and recovered billions of dollars for clients both in and out of court,” said Scott Martin, Co-Chair of the firm’s US Antitrust Practice. “This recognition is a testament to the firm’s continued commitment to providing our clients with exceptional legal counsel.”
The 2022 Antitrust Annual Report provides an overview of antitrust class actions litigated in US federal court from 2009 through 2022. It addresses various topics, including the number of antitrust class action complaints filed each year, the amount of time on average to reach a settlement, the mean and median recoveries, attorneys' fees and costs awarded, the total settlement amounts in each year and overall, the law firms that represented plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust class action settlements, and the cumulative totals for claims administrators involved in the settlement process. The report also distinguishes private antitrust enforcement by particular industries, by type of claim—conspiracy claims (under Section 1 of the Sherman Act) as opposed to claims based on unilateral conduct (Section 2 of the Sherman Act)—and by type of plaintiff—whether claims were brought on behalf of direct or indirect purchasers.
The full report is available here.
