Two Penn Center
1500 JFK Blvd, Suite 320
Philadelphia, PA 19102
phone: 215-814-6750
fax: 215-814-6764

Experience

Anthony J. Bolognese

Anthony J. Bolognese is the founding principal of Bolognese & Associates, LLC, a law firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which Mr. Bolognese formed in the year 2000, after practicing law with two other law firms during the early part of his legal career.  Since its formation, Bolognese & Associates, LLC has represented individuals and businesses involved in a broad array of commercial and business disputes.
  • Mr. Bolognese has extensive experience as counsel in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts throughout the nation, with a particular concentration and emphasis in individual and class action litigation under the state and federal antitrust laws.
  • In addition to his core antitrust practice, Mr. Bolognese has represented clients in commercial litigation matters, including breach of contract litigation, litigation involving claims for coverage and indemnification under directors and officers liability insurance policies: bad faith denial or delay of insurance benefits, disputes involving business torts and other unfair and deceptive business practices (including claims such as fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, corporate espionage, violation of restrictive covenants, and tortuous interference with business opportunities), disputes involving partnerships and closely held companies and claims involving alleged breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of corporate assets by corporate officers and directors.  Mr. Bolognese also advises and represents private and public sector employees in connection with their rights under federal and state whistleblower termination laws.
  • Mr. Bolognese is a member of the Advisory Board of the American Antitrust Institute, an independent Washington-based non-profit education, research, and advocacy organization, the mission of which is to promote a vigorous antitrust policy.  Mr. Bolognese is a frequent lecturer on class actions, discovery issues (including in the rapidly evolving area of electronic discovery), trial advocacy, class actions, and developments in antitrust law.  His most recent presentations as a panelist were in programs sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute entitled: "Best Practices in Pre-trial Litigation in the Federal Courts" in December of 2011, at the 2012 Federal Bench Bar Conference of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in June of 2012, and Best Practices in Pretrial Litigation in the Federal Courts II, in March of 2013.  The panelists for these programs include member of the federal judiciary and leading practitioners, who were selected to share their experience in handling various aspects of complex civil litigation.  His most recent presentations as a panelist were in programs sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute entitled: "Best Practices in Pre-trial Litigation in the Federal Courts" in December of 2011, at the 2012 Federal Bench Bar Conference of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in June of 2012, and Best Practices in Pretrial Litigation in the Federal Courts II, in March of 2013.  Mr. Bolognese was honored to be invited, and served as a panelist in January and February of 2014 on the cutting edge topic of Uncovering and Proving Financial Fraud, a seminar sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. This seminar presented the perspectives of professionals in various areas (forensic accountants, civil practitioners, and a federal prosecutor) to address the principal issues that arise in litigation involving alleged financial fraud.
  • From 2009 through 2012, Mr. Bolognese was honored to serve as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation, the charitable arm of the Philadelphia Bar Association, which awards grants to law-related programs in the Philadelphia area that assist the indigent, elderly and disabled, and others in need of legal assistance.  Mr. Bolognese is a member of the Board of Directors of the Italy-American Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia (IACCGP).  The IACCGP is an organization comprised of businesses and professionals throughout the Delaware Valley, fostering trade, commerce and successful business ventures between Italy and the local Delaware Valley region. See www.iaccgp.org/.  Mr. Bolognese is also a member of The Justinian Society which is a legal organization comprised of attorneys, judges and law students of Italian-ancestry.  Located in Philadelphia, the Society's members celebrate generations of involvement within the legal community. See www.justinian.org.
  • Mr. Bolognese has been honored with Martindale-Hubbell's designation as an "AV" rated attorney, the highest rating available to any individual lawyer, and a designation that is reserved for those who have achieved the height of professional excellence in terms of legal ability and adherence to the highest ethical standards.
Mr. Bolognese has served as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs in many of the most substantial federal antitrust actions of the past decade which have resulted in substantial court approved recoveries, including:
  • In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of EPDM, the third largest synthetic rubber consumed worldwide, which resulted in total recoveries exceeding $100 million.
  • In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and related products, which resulted in total recoveries exceeding $97 million.
  • Alco Industries, Inc. v. DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of Polychloroprene ("CR"), a synthetic rubber product, which resulted in total recoveries exceeding $36 million.
  • In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litigation, a related antitrust action brought against additional defendants, resulting in additional recoveries exceeding $15 million.
  • In re Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of methyl methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), which resulted in total recoveries exceeding $15 million.
  • In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of persons who purchased and leased new Mercedes-Benz automobiles, which resulted in total recoveries exceeding $17 million.
  • In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of cotton yarns, which resulted in total recoveries exceeding $7.8 million.
  • In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of flat glass products which settled for over $120 million.
  • In re Residential Doors Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action brought on behalf of purchasers of residential doors which resulted in a settlement of over $14 million.
In addition, Mr. Bolognese served as Co-Chair of Discovery, directing the pretrial discovery process (document review, depositions, etc.) on behalf of all plaintiffs' counsel, in:
  • In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of vitamins and vitamin by-products alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlement of over $1 billion.
  • In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of carbon black alleging that the principal manufacturers of this product conspired to fix, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlements of over $20 million.
In addition, Mr. Bolognese performed services as plaintiffs' co-counsel in the following cases:
  • In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of rubber chemicals colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlements exceeding $250 million.
  • In re Organic Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlements exceeding $30 million.
  • In re First Data Bank Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the principal manufacturer of such products monopolized the market, resulting in artificially inflated, supra-competitive prices for the product which resulted in a recovery by settlements of $26 million.
  • Linens of Europe, Inc. v. Best Metropolitan Towel and Linen Supply, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the main suppliers of linens and linen services to the New York restaurant industry colluded to fix prices of their products and services at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlements exceeding $6 million in cash and $3 million in vouchers.
  • Industrial Graphite Products, Inc. v. Carbone of America Industries Corp., et al., an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlements exceeding $11 million.
  • In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in a recovery by settlements exceeding $80 million.
  • In re Potassium Sorbate Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the Northern District of California alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $90 million.
  • In re Bromine Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $9 million.
  • In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the auction houses colluded to fix the commissions they charge to purchasers and sellers at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $400 million.
  • In re Commercial tissue Products Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $50 million.
  • In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Nine West and other manufacturers of such products colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $20 million.
  • In re Magnetic Audio Tapes Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the world's principal manufacturers of magnetic audio tapes colluded to fix the prices of such products at artificially inflated levels resulted in settlements exceeding $10 million.
  • In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging that such airlines colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels resulted in settlements valued at several hundred million dollars.
  • In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi alleging that major catfish farmers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels resulted in a recovery in settlements exceeding $20 million.
  • In re Waste Haulers' Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the two leading national waste disposal services providers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $25 million.
  • In re Chlorine and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that major chlorine and caustic soda producers colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $25 million.
  • In re Toys "R" Us, Inc. Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that major national retailers colluded with toy manufacturers to restrict competition in the sale of toys to consumers which resulted in settlements exceeding $56 million in cash and products.
  • In re D.C. Soft Drinks Antitrust Litigation, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that major soda bottlers in the Washington, D.C. area colluded to fix prices at artificially inflated levels which resulted in settlements exceeding $8 million.

Click To View Recent Professional Presentations

Website Builder