T: 212.931.0704 | E: email@example.com
Brett Cebulash focuses his practice on litigating complex class actions designed to remedy class-wide harms caused by unfair, deceptive or anticompetitive practices. Over the course of his 25-year career, Mr. Cebulash has made substantial contributions to complex class cases in the areas of antitrust law (designed to remedy anticompetitive behavior and restore competition), consumer protection law (designed to remedy unfair and deceptive practices in the sale or use of goods and services), employment law (designed to remedy unfair employment practices), and securities law (designed to remedy false and misleading disclosures in the sale of securities). In recognition of his achievements in complex litigation, Mr. Cebulash has been selected as a New York Metro “Super Lawyer” from 2014-2017 in antitrust litigation. “Super Lawyer” selection results from peer nominations, a “blue ribbon” panel review process and independent research on candidates; no more than 5% of lawyers in the New York metro areas are selected as “Super Lawyers.”
Mr. Cebulash has prosecuted complex class matters in a wide range of industries. For instance, Mr. Cebulash is currently engaged in challenging practices regarding infant formula marketing in Hasemann v. Gerber (E.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Counsel) and improper imposition of fees by Nassau and Suffolk County in Guthart v. Nassau County and McGrath v. Suffolk County (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). As Lead Counsel, Mr. Cebulash was substantially involved in all aspects of Marchese v. Cablevision (D.N.J.), a class action challenging Cablevision’s tying of subscriptions to interactive services to the rental of set-top boxes exclusively from Cablevision that resulted in a settlement providing in excess of $72 million in settlement benefits and significant injunctive relief to Cablevision subscribers. In the trucking industry, Mr. Cebulash also has been involved in Wallach, et al v. Eaton (D. Del.), a class action challenging exclusive dealing conduct in the market for Class 8 truck transmissions, and Universal Delaware, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., et al. (E.D.Pa.), challenging anticompetitive arrangements with regard to fuel
Mr. Cebulash has litigated many cases that challenge anticompetitive conduct in the healthcare industry. For example, Mr. Cebulash has been involved in development and prosecution of In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass.) and In re Effexor XR Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.). Other examples in the healthcare area include Natchitoches Parish Hosp. v. Tyco (D. Mass.), brought on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of sharps containers who were overcharged as a result of Tyco’s exclusive dealing conduct, where Mr. Cebulash was responsible for leading all aspects of the case up to summary judgment, including successfully arguing for class certification, defending the opinions of plaintiffs’ economists, deposing and successfully challenging opinions of certain of Defendants’ experts, leading all discovery efforts and engaging in economic analyses. In Neurontin Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J), Mr. Cebulash was responsible for developing the direct purchaser class action that challenged Pfizer’s scheme to delay generic competition for Neurontin, including formulating the contours of Pfizer’s overarching scheme and successfully arguing against Pfizer’s motion to dismiss. Mr. Cebulash successfully lead prosecution of In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), which challenged anticompetitive agreements between generic manufacturers of generic Adalat, including leading discovery against Biovail, deposing production and manufacturing experts, working with plaintiffs’ experts and preparing successful class
certification and summary judgement papers.
In the area of consumer protection, Mr. Cebulash has been prominently involved in cases challenging the practices of banks and insurers in the forced placement of flood insurance. In Arnett v. Bank of America (D. Or.), Mr. Cebulash successfully argued in opposition to Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, developed the concept of the lender- servicer distinction (to distinguish the actions of loan servicers from those reserved to the lender/owner of the mortgage to counter servicers’ arguments that they were entitled to unfettered discretion under the mortgage to set terms for flood insurance) and engaged in all other aspects of the prosecution of the Arnett matter, leading to a settlement providing $31 million in cash for the class as well as significant relief from Bank of America’s flood insurance practices. Mr. Cebulash was involved in the development and prosecution of Casey and Skinner v. Citibank (N.D.N.Y), where the court adopted the lender-servicer distinction in denying Citibank’s motion to dismiss and which ultimately settled for $110 million in value available to the flood, hazard and wind insurance classes as well as changes to Citibank’s insurance practices. In Clements, Scheetz, et. al. v. JP Morgan Chase (N.D. Cal.)/(S.D.N.Y.) Mr. Cebulash developed concepts that contributed to reaching a settlement that provided $22.1 million in cash to the class and changes to Chase’s force placed flood insurance practices. Mr. Cebulash has litigated cases challenging other insurance-related deceptive practices including Westrope v. Ringler, (D. Or.) alleging that structured settlement brokers negligently and illegally sold ELNY annuities and In re Provident Demutualization, (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pleas) challenging a demutualization on the basis that it benefitted insiders and executives at the expense of policyholders.
Mr. Cebulash has successfully litigated numerous actions against credit card issuers challenging their deceptive practices with regard to their credit protection products. Mr. Cebulash was involved in the litigation of Spinelli, et al v. Capital One, (M.D. Fla), which included litigating cases in California and Connecticut and negotiating a successful settlement that provided substantial relief to Capital One cardholders. Mr. Cebulash also litigated actions on behalf of cardholders in Esslinger v. HSBC, (E.D. Pa.) (co-lead counsel), Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation (N.D. Cal.) (executive committee) and Discover Payment Protection Plan Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (N.D. Ill.), successfully providing these classes with over $50 million in total cash relief as well as improvements to credit protection practices.
Mr. Cebulash has also litigated securities class actions, developing theories regarding improper disclosures and improper accounting and revenue recognition methods that lead to successful results in cases such as F&M Distributors, Inc. Securities Litigation (E.D. Mich.) Bank One Securities Litigation (N.D. Ill.) and Gutter v. Dupont (S.D. Fla.). Mr. Cebulash has also been substantially involved in employment cases such as Davis v. Kodak (W.D.N.Y.) and Diaz v. Electronics Boutique (W.D.N.Y.)
A graduate of the University of Virginia, Mr. Cebulash received his J.D. cum laude from Brooklyn Law School. He is admitted to the Bar of the States of New York and New Jersey, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Third and Ninth Circuits and the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Western and Northern Districts of New York. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association, Antitrust Section, the New York County Lawyers Association, Public Justice and the Committee to Support Antitrust Laws (COSAL).