Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#046)

Week of January 26, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Antitrust Meets Climate Policy: State of Michigan v. BP advances a novel theory of coordinated fossil-fuel dominance—linking Section 1 and 2 violations to alleged collusion in renewable-energy suppression and climate misinformation campaigns.

2. Heightened Structural Enforcement Continues: The DOJ’s Columbus McKinnon–Kito Crosby suit and the FTC’s Edwards–JenaValve injunction reflect reinvigorated Philadelphia National Bank–style presumptions against high-concentration mergers across industrial and life-sciences sectors.

3. Courts Fine-Tune Antitrust Injury and Remedies: The divergent outcomes in Mylan v. Sanofi and ISL v. World Aquatics highlight judicial caution in awarding damages while preserving core monopolization and rule-of-reason claims for trial.

New Cases Filed

State of Mich. v. BP P.L.C. (W.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2026): The State of Michigan sued BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute alleging they conspired for decades to suppress competition from renewable energy and delay the transition away from fossil fuels in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The complaint claims the defendants colluded through trade associations and coordinated investments to restrain innovation in electric vehicles, batteries, and charging networks, suppress solar and wind development, and redirect “green” funding into fossil fuel–enabling technologies like carbon capture. Michigan alleges the companies jointly engaged in disinformation and greenwashing campaigns to mislead consumers, infiltrated universities and international climate bodies to distort research and policy, and even funded hacking operations targeting watchdogs and attorneys general investigating them. The State contends this cartel artificially raised energy prices, reduced consumer choice, and imposed billions in economic and environmental costs on Michigan residents.

A2K, Inc. v. Fluor Corp. (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2026): A2K, a longtime subcontractor to Fluor Corporation, sued Fluor and B&H Claims Service alleging they conspired to exclude A2K from FEMA’s disaster recovery contracting market and monopolize FEMA’s “East Zone” disaster relief work in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint claims that after FEMA renewed only Fluor’s prime contract for the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire recovery, Fluor solicited A2K to recruit and onboard dozens of qualified Technical Assistance Contractors but then, in coordination with B&H, secretly reassigned those workers to B&H and other subcontractors using false claims that A2K was no longer approved to deploy staff. A2K alleges Fluor then barred it from future FEMA projects, effectively ending its 17-year relationship with Fluor and depriving it of its only source of revenue.

Weskan Grain LLC v. Kan. & Okla. R.R. (D. Kan. Jan. 27, 2026): Grain farmers and shippers in western Kansas and eastern Colorado sued Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad (“K&O”) and Union Pacific Railroad (“UP”) alleging a secret agreement to block competition and maintain monopoly control over westbound grain shipments in violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws. The complaint asserts that after Colorado Pacific Railroad (“CXR”) restored the “Towner Line” in 2019 to provide a direct western route, UP and K&O amended their 1997 lease without federal approval to impose an excessive “interchange fee” of over $500 per railcar on any freight moving between UP’s leased track and the Towner Line—making the new route economically impossible to use. Plaintiffs claim the fee effectively eliminated competition, forced all grain traffic onto UP and K&O lines, and depressed grain prices for farmers by increasing shipping costs. The alleged “paper barrier” has blocked all westbound rail traffic for six years, cutting CXR’s revenues and inflating Weskan Grain’s transport costs.

United States v. Columbus McKinnon Corp. (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2026): The United States sued to block Columbus McKinnon Corporation’s (“CMCO”) $2.7 billion acquisition of Kito Crosby Limited from KKR, alleging the deal would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaint contends that CMCO and Kito Crosby are the two largest U.S. suppliers of electric chain hoists and two of the three largest suppliers of overhead lifting chain, with combined market shares exceeding 70 percent and 60 percent respectively. According to the Department of Justice, the merger would eliminate head-to-head competition that has led to lower prices, better quality, and innovation, leaving customers with fewer options in highly concentrated markets critical to manufacturing, construction, and logistics. The DOJ alleges new entry is unlikely because production requires substantial investment, strict safety standards, and strong brand reputation, making competitive harm durable.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Ala. State Med. Ass'n v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

• Ariz. Med. Ass'n v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) (same)

• Colo. Med. Soc'y v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) (same)

• La. State Med. Soc'y v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) (same)

• CEP Am., LCC v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2026) (same)

• JM Smith Corp. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2026) (alleging anticompetitive conduct as to the sale of GLP-1 drugs like in Strive Specialties Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026))

• Reincubate, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (D.N.J. Jan. 27, 2026) (alleging Apple monopolized the smartphone market like in United States v. Apple Inc. (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2024))

• Fields v. DSM-Firmenich AG (D.N.J. Jan. 27, 2026) (alleging defendants engaged in conspiracy to fix, raise, and maintain prices for fragrances like in Peychal v. DSM-Firmenich AG (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2023))

• Emery v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2026) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices of conventional fresh shell eggs like in King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2025))

• United Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty. v. Rev Grp. (D. Kan. Jan. 29, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to inflate the price of fire trucks like in City of La Crosse v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2025))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Int'l Swimming League, Ltd. v. World Aquatics (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2026): In this case alleging a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Act, the jury found in favor of plaintiff International Swimming League (ISL) on all counts. The verdict form shows that the jury determined that ISL proved that World Aquatics and its member federations agreed to boycott ISL events and that the alleged refusal to deal caused substantial harm to competition, deprived ISL of market access, and resulted in antitrust injury. However, the jury awarded ISL nominal damages of one dollar.

Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (W.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2026): In this case alleging monopolization of the injectable insulin glargine market, the court denied most of Sanofi’s motion to dismiss Mylan’s complaintt but granted limited dismissal of the “product hop” claim. The court held that Mylan plausibly alleged that Sanofi maintained monopoly power after its Lantus patent expired through a multi-pronged exclusionary scheme involving (a) improper Orange Book patent listings and sham litigation that delayed FDA approval of Mylan’s biosimilar Semglee, and (b) bundled rebate agreements tying Lantus and Toujeo to foreclose biosimilar competition. The court ruled that these practices, viewed collectively, plausibly constituted willful maintenance of monopoly power under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and supported parallel claims under the Clayton Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act. It dismissed the standalone product-hop theory without prejudice, allowed 120 days of jurisdictional discovery over French parent Sanofi S.A., and directed the remaining defendants to answer within 45 days.

Masiello v. Realty Executives LLC (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy among Arizona real estate brokers and NAR chapters to impose the buyer-broker commission rule, the court dismissed the claims against Realty Executives for lack of Article III standing. The court held that plaintiff, who sold his home through a broker called HomeSmart, failed to plausibly trace his injury to Realty Executives because the complaint alleged only vertical agreements between individual brokers and NAR, not a horizontal “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy connecting the brokers themselves. Citing In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, the court found that brokers had independent business incentives to adopt NAR’s rule to access MLS listings, rendering parallel conduct insufficient to imply coordination. Concluding that Masiello at most alleged a “rimless wheel” of separate vertical conspiracies, the court ruled his injury was not fairly traceable to Realty Executives, denied leave to amend as futile, and dismissed all claims against it.

FTC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2026): In this case alleging that Edwards Lifesciences’ proposed acquisition of JenaValve Technology would eliminate competition in the research, development, and commercialization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices for aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR), the court granted the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The court held that (a) Edwards’ acquisitions of JenaValve and JC Medical would combine the only two firms with FDA-validated TAVR-AR devices in clinical trials, (b) the merger would likely create a monopoly and substantially lessen competition by eliminating head-to-head innovation in a nascent market, and (c) under Philadelphia National Bank and Illumina v. FTC, the FTC showed a reasonable probability of success and that the equities favored blocking the merger pending administrative proceedings.

In re Tecfidera Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2026): In this case alleging that Biogen conspired with major pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to suppress generic competition for the multiple sclerosis drug Tecfidera in violation of, among other things, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, the court denied Biogen’s motion to dismiss in full. The court held that (a) plaintiffs are sufficiently immediately injured to challenge the alleged scheme and thus the claims were not barred for lack of directness; (b) plaintiffs—health plans that paid inflated costs for Biogen’s Tecfidera and Vumerity—plausibly alleged that Biogen paid major PBMs to manipulate formularies to disadvantage generic dimethyl fumarate, foreclosing competition in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; (b) Biogen’s coordinated “market switch” from Tecfidera to Vumerity, supported by false GI-safety claims, coupon programs, and PBM rebates, plausibly constituted coercive exclusionary conduct under the rule of reason; and (c) Biogen’s payments to PBMs stated a valid commercial bribery claim under Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act because the alleged PBM–Biogen enterprises operated through systematic kickbacks that departed from ordinary commercial practice.

Class Actions Certifications and Settlements

In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2025): In this class action by direct purchasers alleging price-fixing of generic drugs, the court granted final approval of a $200 million class settlement resolving the claims against Sun Pharmaceutical and Taro Pharmaceuticals. The certified end-payer class includes indirect purchasers in 48 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who paid or reimbursed for covered drugs between 2009 and 2019. Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) and the Girsh factors, the court noted no objections and accepted 67 valid opt-outs. The fund will be distributed pro rata, with one-third allocated to attorneys’ fees, $305,000 in expenses, $3 million reserved for ongoing litigation, and service awards of $30,000 for third-party payor representatives and $5,000 for consumers. The court approved the settlement as equitable and beneficial to the class given the complexity and duration of the broader MDL litigation.

Pospisil v. ATP Tour, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2026): In this putative antitrust class action alleging the defendants engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to suppress professional player compensation and exclude rival tennis events, the court preliminarily approved a damages settlement between a group of players including Vasek Pospisil, Nick Kyrgios, and others, and defendant Tennis Australia. The settlement resolves claims against Tennis Australia with prejudice under the terms of a Damages Settlement Agreement. The order requires Tennis Australia to provide Class Action Fairness Act notice at its expense and stay all proceedings involving it pending final approval. Plaintiffs must submit a motion by July 22, 2026, proposing a notice plan detailing the method, timeline, and procedures for class members to object or opt out. The court will schedule a fairness hearing after reviewing the notice plan and retains jurisdiction over all matters related to the settlement.

***      ***      ***

If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:

Christian Lorenz Zach Martin  christian@kressinpowers.com zach@kressinpowers.com

This newsletter has been prepared by Kressin Powers LLC for educational and informational purposes only regarding recent legal developments and does not constitute advertising or solicitation. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their jurisdiction. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any jurisdiction in which Kressin Powers LLC lawyers are not authorized to practice. Confidential information should not be sent to Kressin Powers LLC without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.