Langer, Grogan & Diver P.C. is a Philadelphia-based law firm that focuses on complex litigation, particularly antitrust and consumer protection matters.
The firm is the only boutique among just 10 law firms recognized for antitrust law in Pennsylvania in the 2015 edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. LGD is described as a “compact antitrust litigation boutique offering expertise to plaintiffs and small businesses. Heavily involved in a number of cases in the pharmaceutical and sports industries.” Attorneys at the firm are regularly recognized by leading lawyer rankings services, including Martindale AV Preeminent ratings and Super Lawyers.
The firm also has a sincere commitment to law in the public interest. LGD has received multiple awards for their pro bono work, including the Equal Justice Award from Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, the Pro Bono Award of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the Social Justice Award from the Jewish Social Policy Network. In addition, the firm has established the Langer Grogan & Diver Social Justice Fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, which annually pays the first-year salary of a law graduate entering public interest law.
LGD’s lawyers have been at the forefront of many hallmark cases, including:
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, 305 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2002) – Obtained what was at the time the largest antitrust recovery ever within the Third Circuit—more than $202 million—in a case alleging a nationwide conspiracy to fix the prices of corrugated boxes.
Falony v. Wachovia Bank — In 2010, the firm recovered over $150 million dollars from Wachovia Bank on behalf of primarily elderly victims of telemarketing fraud. Checks were mailed to approximately eight hundred thousand victims in the full amounts taken from their accounts.
Reyes v. Netdeposit, LLC, 802 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) – In a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a denial of class certification and identified the proper standards courts must use when evaluating civil RICO class actions.
Laumann. v. National Hockey League, 56 F. Supp. 3d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)– The class action lawsuit, originally filed in 2012, challenged the NHL’s broadcast practices. The complaint, brought on behalf of Comcast and DIRECTV customers and purchasers of the NHL’s streaming service, GameCenter Live, alleged that the NHL had carved up the broadcast market into exclusive territories in order to protect each team’s television partner from competition. In June 2015, a settlement was reached that will create more consumer choice and lower prices.
Kroger Co. v. Sanofi-Aventis,701 F. Supp. 2d 938 (E.D. Pa. 2010) — The firm obtained dismissal of antitrust class-action claims alleging that a generic manufacturer had conspired with a major pharmaceutical manufacturer to delay generic entry of the drug Plavix in a cutting edge antitrust litigation relating to patents and generic drugs.
King Drug Co. of Florence Inc. v Cephalon, Inc., 702 F. Supp 2d. 514 (Ed. Pa. 2010) — The court sustained claims brought by the firm on behalf of a generic manufacturer against a patent holder and the generic manufacturers who were alleged to have conspired to keep a generic version of the widely sold drug, Provigil, off the market.
Beilowitz v. General Motors Corp., 233 F. Supp. 2d 631 (D.N.J. 2002) – In obtaining an injunction enjoining General Motors from implementing a new national marketing scheme, the firm’s attorneys obtained injunctive relief on behalf of businesses threatened by anti-competitive or other wrongful conduct.