ALAN UNGER is a seasoned litigator focusing principally on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on antitrust litigation. He has also been involved in complex partnership and corporate litigation matters in the U.S. and offshore investment management arena. Alan has been acknowledged for Antitrust in The Legal 500 US (2012 and 2016), where he is recommended as “incredibly smart, creative, and focused on achieving business objectives.”
Alan currently represents a LIBOR-panel bank member in a series of class and individual actions, multidistricted in the Southern District of New York, in which plaintiffs assert various violations of federal and state antitrust laws arising out of alleged agreements among the defendant banks to manipulate the setting of LIBOR rates.
Alan also currently represents another global bank in a class action filed in the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendant banks conspired to manipulate prices in connection with the trading of certain foreign exchange currency pairs.
Significant other cases led by Alan include:
- Serving as lead counsel for the owner and operator of a men’s professional tennis tournament in an action filed in the District of Delaware against the organization that sanctions men’s professional tennis tournaments, as well as certain of its directors. The complaint alleged that the sanctioning body and its directors conspired with certain favored tournaments, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, to downgrade the status of plaintiff’s tournament and impose certain restrictions on players that would foreclose plaintiff from competing to maintain its status as a top-tier tournament. The action was settled and the plaintiff’s tennis tournament has maintained its top-tier status.
- Serving as lead counsel for a national wireless service provider in a series of putative class actions that were consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Southern District of New York, asserting that five national wireless service providers unlawfully tied the sale of phones to the sale of wireless service, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In this two-phase litigation, defendants obtained (i) summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs’ unilateral tying claims and (ii) denial of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of their conspiracy to tie claims.
- Serving as lead counsel for a manufacturer of polyester staple fiber in a series of putative class and “opt-out” actions filed around the country on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber, alleging that the four major U.S. manufacturers of polyester staple fiber conspired to fix prices and allocate customers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state statutes.
- Representing a major daily newspaper in an action filed in the Eastern District of New York by a group of more than 40 automobile dealerships, asserting violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, based on allegations that the newspaper granted preferential, highly discounted advertising rates to a “preferred” group of dealers, in exchange for agreements to discontinue a competing automobile advertising publication and to advertise exclusively in the defendant’s newspaper.
- Representing a manufacturer of non-selective herbicides in an action filed in the Southern District of New York in which the plaintiff alleged monopolization of the market for non-selective herbicides for consumer use in the United States, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and that the manufacturer and a marketer of consumer home and garden products, by entering into an exclusive marketing and agency agreement, conspired to restrain competition, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- Representing a European bank in a putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York in which the plaintiff alleged that a group of European banks conspired to fix the fees charged in the exchange of currencies that made up the Euro, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In that action, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ultimately affirmed that dismissal.
- Representing a major telecommunications carrier in an arbitration action asserting, among other claims, that the carrier unlawfully tied the sale of its network transport services to the sale of its 900 telephone number billing and collection services. Alan previously represented that telecommunications carrier in an action filed in the District of Nevada asserting a claim of unlawful tying of billing and transport services for 900 telephone number services. In that action, the Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the tying claim and, on appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal.