 | This article needs to be updated.(July 2015) |
The De Beers diamonds antitrust class action sought to end an alleged 60-year conspiracy to fix the price of rough diamonds in the U.S. by the De Beers group of companies. The litigation includes several cases including Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., No. CGC-04-432954, which commenced on July 24, 2004, and Sullivan v. DB Investments, No. 04-cv-02819, and earlier related cases that commenced in 2001.
The complaints charged that De Beers had created a global cartel in the markets of rough and polished diamonds – with a market share that reached nearly as high as 90% – through aggressive management of supply and prices, and collusive agreements with competitors, suppliers, and distributors. This was a quintessential antitrust violation of the Sherman Act. [1]
In October 2005, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to settle the claims of all indirect purchasers nationwide, with Sullivan serving as the procedural vehicle for seeking court approval of the settlement, notice and claims administration. Working out the details took three years between Plaintiffs' Counsel and De Beers. [2] On April 14, 2008, the Court conducted a fairness hearing and on May 27, 2008, granted final approval to the settlement. [3]
The settlement provides $295 million to purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry, including $130 million to consumers. In addition, De Beers consented to a historic injunction that prohibits De Beers from monopolizing the world supply of rough diamonds and from fixing the price of polished diamonds. The injunction also requires De Beers to submit to the continuing jurisdiction of the United States District Court for enforcement of the injunction. [4] Commenting on the case, plaintiff's counsel Eric B. Fastiff of Lieff Cabraser stated that De Beers' offer to settle "showed that our strategy was correct. If you put litigation pressure and represent your client vigorously, eventually a guilty defendant will recognize that it needs to resolve its problems." [2]
On May 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the final petition for review. Pursuant to an Order of the Court, Initial Distribution checks were mailed to Authorized Reseller Claimants on August 31, 2012. The remaining proceeds of the Reseller Subclass Net Settlement Fund were distributed to Authorized Reseller Claimants on March 15, 2013. As of November 24, 2015, distribution of settlement funds has been completed and the case is now closed.
De Beers Group is an international corporation that specializes in diamond mining, diamond exploitation, diamond retail, diamond trading and industrial diamond manufacturing sectors. The company is active in open-pit, large-scale alluvial and coastal mining. It operates in 35 countries and mining takes place in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Canada and Australia.
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency. That regime started with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices that were harmful to consumers. The Clayton Act specified particular prohibited conduct, the three-level enforcement scheme, the exemptions, and the remedial measures.
In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.
Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
Decartelization is the transition of a national economy from monopoly control by groups of large businesses, known as cartels, to a free market economy. This change rarely arises naturally, and is generally the result of regulation by a governing body with monopoly of power to decide what structures it likes.
Resale price maintenance (RPM) or, occasionally, retail price maintenance is the practice whereby a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the distributors will sell the manufacturer's product at certain prices, at or above a price floor or at or below a price ceiling. If a reseller refuses to maintain prices, either openly or covertly, the manufacturer may stop doing business with it.
Milberg LLP is a US plaintiffs' law firm, established in 1965 and based in New York City. It has mounted many class action cases on behalf of investors, and has been recognized as among the leading firms in its field by the National Law Journal, RiskMetrics Group, Securities Class Action Services, and Law360. The firm and some of its partners were charged in 2006 with offering improper inducements to plaintiffs. The case against the firm itself was dismissed in 2008, but that same year four partners pleaded guilty to charges, and many others had already left the firm.
The lysine price-fixing conspiracy was an organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, including American company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Japanese companies Ajinomoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo, and Korean companies Sewon America Inc. and Cheil Jedang Ltd. A criminal investigation resulted in fines and three-year prison sentences for three executives of ADM who colluded with the other companies to fix prices. The foreign companies settled with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division in September through December 1996. Each firm and four executives from the Asian firms pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain to aid in further investigation against ADM. The cartel had been able to raise lysine prices 70% within their first nine months of cooperation.
This is a partial list of notable price fixing and bid rigging cases.
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.
A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 263 F.3d 239, was an early appellate case testing the legality of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), in this instance whether it could properly be alleged to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Tritent International Corp. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 467 F.3d 547, is a US antitrust law case decided by the Court of Appeals on the Sixth Circuit. The case is notable, inter alia, because it provides a summary of the difficult terms of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.
Jeffrey L. Kessler is a partner at the international law firm Winston & Strawn, where he also serves as co-executive chairman and co-chair of the firm's antitrust/competition and sports law practices. Until May 2012, he was the global litigation chair at the international law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf, where he was also the co-chair of the sports litigation practice group and served on the firm's executive and leadership committees. His major clients include the National Football League Players Association, the National Basketball Players Association, William Morris Endeavor, Activision Blizzard, Avanci, the Major League Baseball Players Association, the players on the United States Women’s National Soccer Team, NTN Corporation, and Panasonic Corporation.
Jonathan W. Cuneo is an American lawyer who has represented clients in state and federal litigation and in government relations in the fields of antitrust, civil and human rights, consumer protection, corporate governance and securities for over three decades.
Murray Frank LLP is a law firm based in New York City that specializes in class action litigation, particularly in cases involving federal securities law, federal antitrust law, ERISA, and state consumer protection law.
The payment card interchange fee and merchant discount antitrust litigation is a United States class-action lawsuit filed in 2005 by merchants and trade associations against Visa, Mastercard, and numerous financial institutions that issue payment cards. The suit was filed due to price fixing and other allegedly anti-competitive trade practices in the credit card industry. A proposed settlement received preliminary approval from the judge overseeing the case in November 2012 but the majority of named class plaintiffs have objected and many have vowed to opt out of the settlement.
Edward (Ted) Millstein is an attorney in Philadelphia. He is best known for representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against large corporations such as Visa, MasterCard, and Volkswagen. Millstein is also well known for his representation of victims of the Holocaust. He was instrumental in obtaining reparations for victims and their families, which resulted in the formation of a foundation with over $5 billion in assets.
High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.
Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.
The TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation was a United States class-action lawsuit regarding the worldwide conspiracy to coordinate the prices of Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used to make laptop computers, computer monitors and televisions, between 1999 and 2006. In March 2010, Judge Susan Illston certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly and indirectly purchased TFT-LCDs – for panel purchasers and purchasers of TFT-LCD integrated products; the litigation was followed by multiple suits.