Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#063)
- Kressin Powers
- 7 days ago
- 4 min read
Week of May 26, 2026
Top Takeaways
Structural Relief Remains the Preferred Merger Remedy: The consent judgment in United States v. Constellation Energy reflects continued reliance on divestiture packages, hold-separate obligations, and trustee oversight to address localized competitive concerns under Section 7.
Labor-Market Antitrust Claims Face Standing Hurdles: Hanna v. Hackensack Meridian reinforces that plaintiffs must plead injury to competition in a defined labor market, not merely individualized employment consequences, to establish antitrust standing.
Class Settlements Continue to Shape Enforcement Outcomes: Preliminary approvals in the fragrance, turkey, and real estate commission litigations demonstrate courts’ ongoing willingness to certify broad settlement classes where negotiated relief and cooperation provisions support remaining claims.
New Cases Filed
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Reliance Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Trane Techs. PLC (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2026) (alleging manufacturers conspired to raise and fix the price of HVAC equipment like in Berg v. Robert Bosch LLC (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2026)); True Heating & Cooling LLC v. Trane Techs. PLC (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2026) (same); Hometown Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Trane Techs. PLC (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2026) (same)
Target Corp. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2026) (alleging Keurig engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the markets for single serve coffee brewers and coffee pods like in 20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026))
Weidenaar v. Koch Fertilizer, LLC (D. Kan. May 27, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026)); Toenjes v. Mosaic Co. (N.D. Ill. May 28, 2026)
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Hanna v. Hackensack Meridian Health (D.N.J. May 22, 2026): In this case alleging defendants’ use of false NPDB reports to interfere with physician employment opportunities violated, among other things, the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act in the labor market for anesthesiologists based on , the court granted New Jersey Healthcare Specialists’ (“NJHS”) motion to dismiss. In dismissing the antitrust claims, the court found that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege antitrust standing because the complaint described personal employment harms rather than broader anticompetitive effects in the anesthesiologist labor market.
United States v. Constellation Energy Corp. (D.D.C. May 26, 2026): In this case seeking to block Constellation Energy’s proposed $26.6 billion acquisition of Calpine Corporation, the court entered a consent judgment requiring divestitures and related relief to resolve the government’s antitrust claims. The consent judgment states that (a) defendants agreed to divest specified ERCOT and PJM electricity generation assets and related operational infrastructure to preserve competition in regional power-generation markets, (b) the divestiture provisions and trustee mechanisms were necessary to ensure that the acquired assets remained viable competitive businesses capable of effective operation by approved acquirers, and (c) compliance, reporting, hold-separate, and enforcement provisions were required to preserve asset value and ensure completion of the structural remedies designed to address the competitive harms alleged in the complaint.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
In re Fragrance Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. May 21, 2026): In this class action claiming that fragrance manufacturers conspired to fix prices and restrict competition, the court granted preliminary approval of a $6.25 million settlement between indirect purchaser plaintiffs and International Flavors & Fragrances. The court preliminarily certified settlement classes of purchasers of fragrance products for incorporation into consumer goods, finding Rule 23 requirements satisfied and the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate following arm’s-length negotiations conducted under the supervision of a mediator. The settlement includes monetary relief and cooperation provisions supporting claims against the remaining defendants, and the court appointed settlement class representatives, class counsel, and an escrow agent. The court stayed proceedings against IFF pending final approval and directed plaintiffs to submit a proposed notice plan before seeking final approval of the settlement.
In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix turkey prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and Agri Stats. The court found the agreement negotiated at arm’s length and likely to satisfy Rule 23(e), approving the settlement on behalf of a previously certified class of indirect purchasers of specified turkey products from 2010 to 2016. The court authorized plaintiffs to later submit a notice plan and schedule for dissemination of class notice and a final fairness hearing, with notice to be sent no later than September 8, 2026. The court deferred any request for attorneys’ fees, expenses, or service awards pending further proceedings.
Tuccori v. At World Properties, LLC (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2026): In this class action alleging that real estate brokerages conspired to inflate residential real estate commissions, the court preliminarily approved opt-in settlement agreements with numerous brokerage companies and affiliated entities that joined a previously approved class settlement. The court reaffirmed certification of a nationwide settlement class of home purchasers who paid commissions in connection with residential real estate transactions listed on MLS systems and found the opt-in agreements fair, reasonable, and the product of arm’s-length negotiations conducted through mediation overseen by a court-appointed special master. The order reappointed class representatives, class counsel, and the settlement administrator, approved continuation of the notice and claims process, and temporarily enjoined settlement class members from pursuing released claims against the settling entities pending final approval. The court also confirmed that the opt-in settlements resolved only the remaining minority of indirect purchaser claims not previously resolved in related seller commission settlements.
*** *** ***
If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:
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.
Comments