“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.
 

Recently, Hausfeld LLP filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA on behalf of former student athletes. The suit alleges that the NCAA violated federal antitrust law by foreclosing former players from receiving any compensation related to the use of their images and likenesses. The case is In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likness Licensing Litigation.

Hausfeld LLP serves as co-lead counsel in this case, where in September 2008 the parties reached a $33 million settlement that was later approved by the Court on December 29, 2008. The distribution of settlement funds announced today will be made available to over one thousand Class members around the country, including university laboratories studying the genetic basis of disease, leading cancer institutes and medical centers, state and local police departments, and forensic laboratories engaged in crime investigation.

1,256 claimants will participate in the settlement fund and recover over 15% of their purchases across the relevant product groups at issue in the case – a substantial recovery for cases of this nature.

“Our ability to achieve a strong recovery and claims rate in this case ensures that the maximum number of Class members will significantly benefit from the distribution of Taq settlement funds announced today,” said Brian Ratner, Partner, Hausfeld LLP. “Class members in this case make a critically important contribution to the nation’s health and safety: university laboratories across the country, leading cancer institutes, medical centers and other impacted organizations can apply these funds to their respective and very worthy causes.”

Additional Case Information
In Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., et al., Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, sought to recover the supra-competitive overcharges it and other direct purchasers paid as a result of defendants’ alleged scheme to fraudulently obtain a patent on Taq and to use that patent to force competitors out of the market so defendants could charge monopoly prices for Taq. Plaintiff also claimed that defendants’ fraudulent procurement and enforcement of the Taq patent inhibited, among other things, potential advances in molecular biology and pathology, and the treatment of life-threatening diseases such as cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. Taq is used to allow scientists and researchers to work with DNA.

For more information about the case and settlement, visit: http://www.hausfeldllp.com/pages/current_investigations/156/taq
or
http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com/taq/.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of antitrust/competition law, consumer fraud, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

Washington, DC – October 30, 2009 – Hausfeld LLP, which represents numerous states, cities and counties that are plaintiffs in a massive municipal bond antitrust lawsuit, hails yesterday’s action by the U.S. Department of Justice charging co-defendant CDR Financial Products Inc. with participating in fraud and bid-rigging in the municipal bond market.

The nine-count indictment filed in New York federal court asserts that CDR and three of its executives, for a period of several years, manipulated the bidding process for municipal derivatives, accepted kickbacks from bidders, and undermined what was supposed to be a competitive bidding process.

“The collusion orchestrated by CDR Financial and major financial institutions extends back several years in what has become a trillion dollar a year industry victimizing dozens of states, counties and cities,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman, Hausfeld LLP. “We fully support yesterday’s action by the DOJ as it reaffirms allegations we have made against these defendants in the civil antitrust complaint, and further undermines claims made by CDR Financial that there is no basis for the case against them.”  

In August 2008, Hausfeld LLP – along with other co-lead counsel Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP – filed a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of several state, local and municipal governments against thirty seven leading banks, insurance companies and brokers alleging widespread price-fixing and bid-rigging in the trillion dollar municipal derivatives industry dating back to 1992. The lawsuits came on the heels of an unprecedented investigation by the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Securities and Exchange Commission into industry-wide collusive practices in the two hundred year old municipal bond industry. An amended class action complaint was filed in June 2009.

Megan Jones, Partner at Hausfeld LLP, said that class counsel was not surprised by the DOJ indictment.  “Given the level of detail in our complaint, which includes paraphrased contents of tape recorded conversations among conspirators, it’s no shock to us that the DOJ (who has the tapes themselves) is coming down with indictments like this,”  said Jones. “For the hundreds of municipalities deprived of competition for these deals, this accountability is welcome news.”

Additional information on the Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation and copies of the class action complaint can be found here. Michael Hausfeld is joined by Michael Lehmann, Robert Eisler, Megan Jones and Faris Ghareeb of Hausfeld LLP on the complaint.

About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

-###-

Key Facts In Civil Complaint

• Defendants in the municipal derivatives antitrust litigation are: AIG Financial Products Corp.; AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.; GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc.; Genworth Financial Inc.; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; Société Générale SA; UBS AG; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Morgan Stanley; Wachovia Bank N.A.; Natixis S.A.; Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd.; Financial Security Assurance, Inc.; Financial Guaranty Insurance Company; Trinity Funding Co. LLC; Piper Jaffray & Co.; Security Capital Assurance Inc.; XL Asset Funding Company LLC; XL Life Insurance & Annuity, Inc.; National Westminster Bank plc; or Bank of America N.A.
• Municipal derivatives are used to invest the proceeds of municipal bonds. Because municipal bonds commonly fund multi-year public works projects, most of their proceeds cannot be spent immediately, and must be invested to earn interest until they are ripe for use. These investment vehicles are known as municipal derivatives, an umbrella term that refers to various tax-exempt vehicles, including guaranteed investment contracts, advance refunding escrows, swaps, options, swaptions, collars, and floors.
• As a result of this conspiracy, the plaintiffs and other class members were deprived of extra money they otherwise would have received from their municipal bond investments and could have spent on important public works projects such as roads, buildings, and mass transit.
• The lawsuits also follow Bank of America’s conditional acceptance into the Antitrust Division’s amnesty program, in connection with which there was disclosure of information regarding the conspiracy described below and the promise to provide full and complete cooperation to the Antitrust Division and the plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.

According to a release by plaintiff’s firm Hausfeld LLP, whose Latin American partner firm, Rubio Alvarez Solis & Abrego filed the action, this is the first class action filed in Latin America against a non-Latin American defendant where foreign plaintiffs are allowed to join.

The class action follows a 1999 judgment by the US Department of Justice in which Roche agreed to pay $500 million for leading the conspiracy to fix prices and allocate market shares for several vitamins sold in the US and elsewhere. Three Roche executives also paid criminal fines and served prison sentences for their participation in the cartel.

In 2001, the European Commission fined Roche €462 million for its leading role in the price fixing and market sharing agreements, and because it participated in all of the vitamin cartels.

This is the second jurisdiction in which Hausfeld has attempted to bring a class action on behalf of foreign purchasers. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Ecuadorean shrimp and tilapia company Empagran’s case against Hoffman-La Roche that foreign purchasers could not bring claims in US courts under the Sherman Act where the injuries suffered in their home jurisdictions were separate from any effect experienced in the US. 
 

John Taladay at Howrey LLP in Washington, DC, says the plaintiffs bar is using Panamanian law, as few foreign jurisdictions permit a cause of action specifically against cartelists, and still fewer allow class action litigation.

“This is a form of missionary work by the plaintiffs bar to convert foreign jurisdictions to the class action religion,” Taladay says. “Panamanian law purportedly allows foreign plaintiffs with similar claims to join in the Panamanian class action whereas in the US the plaintiffs bar failed in the Empagran case to get the courts to recognise foreign plaintiffs’ claims, except when the foreign defendants’ claims are integral to the US claim.”
Taladay says this could have been a measure taken in order to keep forum shopping out of the US. “The US doesn’t want to become the international court of law for antitrust class actions.”

Michael Hausfeld at Hausfeld LLP in Washington says other non-Panamanian purchasers are currently “in discussions” over joining the new claim. “If claims from foreign companies cannot be brought in the US, there are laws in Latin America that encourage and permit such claims,” he says. “More and more of these cases will be filed in jurisdictions other than the US and European Union, allowing companies to obtain compensation no matter where the violations have taken place.”
 

The class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Industrias Lacteas, S.A. (formerly Procesadora Industrial) and Panamanian corporate and individual victims overcharged as a result of the alleged vitamins cartel. The lawsuit specifically alleges that Industrias Lacteas, S.A., a company that, among other activities, raises livestock, was overcharged in its purchases of bulk vitamins from Roche between January 1992 and March 1998. The claim also allows for a broader set of purchasers, from countries other than Panama, to join the class action.

“Hausfeld LLP is committed to pursuing with our partners and correspondents the private enforcement of global cartel activity in any jurisdiction where cartel victims can achieve redress for their economic harm,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “The class action lawsuit filed in Panama continues our long-standing efforts to provide such redress for victims of the unparalleled vitamins cartel.”

This lawsuit, filed in Panama under Panama’s Law 19 of 2008, is the first international class action filed in Latin America against a non-Latin American defendant, where foreign plaintiffs, with similar claims, are allowed to join. It is also the first Latin American class action involving a global cartel.

The Panama class action lawsuit seeks to extend the recent successes of Hausfeld LLP lawyers in recovering over a billion dollars in settlements for vitamin purchases victimized by the 10-year global price-fixing and market allocation cartel, including:

• In In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP serves as Co-Lead Counsel for two classes of U.S. direct vitamin purchasers in this decade-long litigation, which has included a landmark billion dollar partial settlement and a jury verdict of more than $148 million in a 2003 trial in the case (the 12th largest U.S. jury verdict in 2003).

• In Empagran, S.A., et al. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., et al. (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP lawyers represented foreign vitamin purchasers in this seminal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and clarified the scope of jurisdiction for foreign plaintiffs to pursue their claims in U.S. courts.

In 1999, Roche agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice a record $500 million fine for leading the worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares for certain vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Certain Roche executives pled guilty, paid criminal fines, and served prison sentences as a result of their participation in the cartel.

In 2001, the European Commission fined Roche €462 million for its role as the “instigator of the cartel” and because it participated in all of the vitamin cartels.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to its Washington headquarters, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

For additional information about Rubio, Alvarez, Solis & Abrego and its services, please visit http://www.rasalaw.com/.

The English text of Panama’s Law 19 of 2008 is available at http://www.interamericanbarfoundation.org/PanamaClassActionTextopulldown18.html.
 

The class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Industrias Lacteas, S.A. (formerly Procesadora Industrial) and Panamanian corporate and individual victims overcharged as a result of the alleged vitamins cartel. The lawsuit specifically alleges that Industrias Lacteas, S.A., a company that, among other activities, raises livestock, was overcharged in its purchases of bulk vitamins from Roche between January 1992 and March 1998. The claim also allows for a broader set of purchasers, from countries other than Panama, to join the class action.

“Hausfeld LLP is committed to pursuing with our partners and correspondents the private enforcement of global cartel activity in any jurisdiction where cartel victims can achieve redress for their economic harm,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “The class action lawsuit filed in Panama continues our long-standing efforts to provide such redress for victims of the unparalleled vitamins cartel.”

This lawsuit, filed in Panama under Panama’s Law 19 of 2008, is the first international class action filed in Latin America against a non-Latin American defendant, where foreign plaintiffs, with similar claims, are allowed to join. It is also the first Latin American class action involving a global cartel.

The Panama class action lawsuit seeks to extend the recent successes of Hausfeld LLP lawyers in recovering over a billion dollars in settlements for vitamin purchases victimized by the 10-year global price-fixing and market allocation cartel, including:

• In In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP serves as Co-Lead Counsel for two classes of U.S. direct vitamin purchasers in this decade-long litigation, which has included a landmark billion dollar partial settlement and a jury verdict of more than $148 million in a 2003 trial in the case (the 12th largest U.S. jury verdict in 2003).

• In Empagran, S.A., et al. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., et al. (D.D.C.), Hausfeld LLP lawyers represented foreign vitamin purchasers in this seminal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and clarified the scope of jurisdiction for foreign plaintiffs to pursue their claims in U.S. courts.

In 1999, Roche agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice a record $500 million fine for leading the worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares for certain vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Certain Roche executives pled guilty, paid criminal fines, and served prison sentences as a result of their participation in the cartel.

In 2001, the European Commission fined Roche €462 million for its role as the “instigator of the cartel” and because it participated in all of the vitamin cartels.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to its Washington headquarters, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.

For additional information about Rubio, Alvarez, Solis & Abrego and its services, please visit http://www.rasalaw.com/.

The English text of Panama’s Law 19 of 2008 is available at http://www.interamericanbarfoundation.org/PanamaClassActionTextopulldown18.html.

International claimant law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has launched its second High Court cartel action in the space of a month. The firm has commenced proceedings against industry giants Shell and Exxon Mobil for their involvement in the paraffin wax price fixing cartel. The cartel took place throughout Europe for a period of 13 years between 1992 and 2005 and involved seven other major producers of paraffin wax. The European paraffin wax market is estimated to be worth almost €500 million.

Paraffin wax is used in a wide variety of products including candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates. Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of several large European candle manufacturers, and is in the process of being instructed by additional candle manufacturers as well as other substantial wax purchasers seeking to take action against the cartelists. The sales at issue for all claimants run into the hundreds of millions of euros.

In October 2008 the European Commission imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin wax) for participating in the cartel. Shell was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission. Exxon Mobil was fined almost €84m. The infringement decision by the Commission forms the basis of this action against Shell and Exxon Mobil, because in follow-on damages actions before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the anti-competitive behaviour took place and was illegal.

In order to allow the claimants to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an innovative agreement with specialist after-the-event insurer FirstAssist Legal Protection to provide them with protection against disbursements and adverse costs risks arising from the case.

This is the second High Court cartel action that Hausfeld has launched in London in the space of a month, following its claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company against Dunlop for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. In September 2008 Hausfeld lawyers commenced proceedings against British Airways for its involvement in the air cargo cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The paraffin wax cartel operated for 13 years throughout Europe. This action has been commenced to offer our clients and potentially hundreds of other businesses who have been affected a means to recoup their considerable losses. We are able to offer claimants an innovative funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs for cartel actions and maximises their chances of recovery, and we would therefore urge those affected by the paraffin wax cartel to come forward and contact us.

“This is the third cartel action that we have launched in London during the space of a year, which demonstrates that the UK is increasingly becoming the European forum of choice for the private enforcement of cartel abuse.”

Background – the paraffin wax cartel

- Paraffin waxes are used in a wide variety of products such as candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates, the wax coating on cheese, chemicals, tyres and car components as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. The market is estimated to be worth almost €500m. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes.

- Between 3 September 1992 and 28 April 2005, the producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax operated a cartel in which they, amongst other things, fixed prices for paraffin waxes.

- The European Commission’s investigation started with surprise inspections in April 2005, prompted by an application for immunity lodged by Shell.

- On 1 October 2008, the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax: ENI (Italy), ExxonMobil (USA), Hansen & Rosenthal (Germany), Tudapetrol (Germany), MOL (Hungary), Repsol (Spain), Sasol (South Africa and Germany), RWE (Germany) and Total (France).

- As Shell was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice it received full immunity from fines.

Claimant law firm sues Shell and Exxon Mobil for involvement in Paraffin Wax cartel

London now European forum of choice for private cartel actions

International claimant law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has launched its second High Court cartel action in the space of a month. The firm has commenced proceedings against industry giants Shell and Exxon Mobil for their involvement in the paraffin wax price fixing cartel. The cartel took place throughout Europe for a period of 13 years between 1992 and 2005 and involved seven other major producers of paraffin wax. The European paraffin wax market is estimated to be worth almost €500 million.

Paraffin wax is used in a wide variety of products including candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates. Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of several large European candle manufacturers, and is in the process of being instructed by additional candle manufacturers as well as other substantial wax purchasers seeking to take action against the cartelists. The sales at issue for all claimants run into the hundreds of millions of euros.

In October 2008 the European Commission imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin wax) for participating in the cartel. Shell was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission. Exxon Mobil was fined almost €84m. The infringement decision by the Commission forms the basis of this action against Shell and Exxon Mobil, because in follow-on damages actions before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the anti-competitive behaviour took place and was illegal.

In order to allow the claimants to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an innovative agreement with specialist after-the-event insurer FirstAssist Legal Protection to provide them with protection against disbursements and adverse costs risks arising from the case.

This is the second High Court cartel action that Hausfeld has launched in London in the space of a month, following its claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company against Dunlop for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. In September 2008 Hausfeld lawyers commenced proceedings against British Airways for its involvement in the air cargo cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The paraffin wax cartel operated for 13 years throughout Europe. This action has been commenced to offer our clients and potentially hundreds of other businesses who have been affected a means to recoup their considerable losses. We are able to offer claimants an innovative funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs for cartel actions and maximises their chances of recovery, and we would therefore urge those affected by the paraffin wax cartel to come forward and contact us.

“This is the third cartel action that we have launched in London during the space of a year, which demonstrates that the UK is increasingly becoming the European forum of choice for the private enforcement of cartel abuse.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the paraffin wax cartel

- Paraffin waxes are used in a wide variety of products such as candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates, the wax coating on cheese, chemicals, tyres and car components as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. The market is estimated to be worth almost €500m. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes.

- Between 3 September 1992 and 28 April 2005, the producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax operated a cartel in which they, amongst other things, fixed prices for paraffin waxes.

- The European Commission’s investigation started with surprise inspections in April 2005, prompted by an application for immunity lodged by Shell.

- On 1 October 2008, the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax: ENI (Italy), ExxonMobil (USA), Hansen & Rosenthal (Germany), Tudapetrol (Germany), MOL (Hungary), Repsol (Spain), Sasol (South Africa and Germany), RWE (Germany) and Total (France).

- As Shell was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice it received full immunity from fines.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

Claimant law firm sues Shell and Exxon Mobil for involvement in Paraffin Wax cartel

London now European forum of choice for private cartel actions

International claimant law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has launched its second High Court cartel action in the space of a month. The firm has commenced proceedings against industry giants Shell and Exxon Mobil for their involvement in the paraffin wax price fixing cartel. The cartel took place throughout Europe for a period of 13 years between 1992 and 2005 and involved seven other major producers of paraffin wax. The European paraffin wax market is estimated to be worth almost €500 million.

Paraffin wax is used in a wide variety of products including candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates. Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of several large European candle manufacturers, and is in the process of being instructed by additional candle manufacturers as well as other substantial wax purchasers seeking to take action against the cartelists. The sales at issue for all claimants run into the hundreds of millions of euros.

In October 2008 the European Commission imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin wax) for participating in the cartel. Shell was not fined because it revealed the existence of the cartel to the Commission. Exxon Mobil was fined almost €84m. The infringement decision by the Commission forms the basis of this action against Shell and Exxon Mobil, because in follow-on damages actions before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the anti-competitive behaviour took place and was illegal.

In order to allow the claimants to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an innovative agreement with specialist after-the-event insurer FirstAssist Legal Protection to provide them with protection against disbursements and adverse costs risks arising from the case.

This is the second High Court cartel action that Hausfeld has launched in London in the space of a month, following its claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company against Dunlop for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. In September 2008 Hausfeld lawyers commenced proceedings against British Airways for its involvement in the air cargo cartel.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld & Co LLP, comments:

“The paraffin wax cartel operated for 13 years throughout Europe. This action has been commenced to offer our clients and potentially hundreds of other businesses who have been affected a means to recoup their considerable losses. We are able to offer claimants an innovative funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs for cartel actions and maximises their chances of recovery, and we would therefore urge those affected by the paraffin wax cartel to come forward and contact us.

“This is the third cartel action that we have launched in London during the space of a year, which demonstrates that the UK is increasingly becoming the European forum of choice for the private enforcement of cartel abuse.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the paraffin wax cartel

- Paraffin waxes are used in a wide variety of products such as candles, waxed paper, paper cups and plates, the wax coating on cheese, chemicals, tyres and car components as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. The market is estimated to be worth almost €500m. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes.

- Between 3 September 1992 and 28 April 2005, the producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax operated a cartel in which they, amongst other things, fixed prices for paraffin waxes.

- The European Commission’s investigation started with surprise inspections in April 2005, prompted by an application for immunity lodged by Shell.

- On 1 October 2008, the Commission announced that as a result of its investigation it had imposed fines totaling €676m on nine corporate groups involved in the production of paraffin wax and slack wax: ENI (Italy), ExxonMobil (USA), Hansen & Rosenthal (Germany), Tudapetrol (Germany), MOL (Hungary), Repsol (Spain), Sasol (South Africa and Germany), RWE (Germany) and Total (France).

- As Shell was the first company to come forward with information about the cartel under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice it received full immunity from fines.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

In February 2008 Hausfeld & Co negotiated a £73.5m settlement with both airlines, providing compensation to UK and US consumers who were overcharged for long-haul airline tickets purchased between August 2004 and March 2006. Over 211,000 refunds have so far been processed, 170,000 of which originate from UK passengers. Payment has been authorised in 133,000 of these cases. These figures represent the actual number of claimants so far, from both individuals and businesses, many of whom may have claimed for multiple journeys.

Hausfeld & Co partner Anthony Maton comments:

“These figures represent the biggest ever take-up rate by UK consumers in a group action of this kind, and creates a precedent for the effective enforcement of consumer rights going forward. The fact that this historic settlement was actually achieved in the US courts demonstrates the urgent need for consumer-friendly reform of the UK’s group litigation framework.

“Whilst it is particularly pleasing to see so many cash-strapped UK travelers claiming back what is rightfully theirs in time for the start of the holiday season, these figures only represent the tip of the iceberg. We estimate that both airlines overcharged with respect to 5.6m journeys involving UK customers during the two-year cartel period.

“Passengers have until December 2012 to claim their refunds, and unless significant numbers of claims are made between now and then big companies like BA and Virgin will continue to believe that they can get away with ripping of their loyal customers.”

Claimants have until 31 December 2012 to claim refunds by filling out a simple claim form on www.airpassengerrefund.co.uk.

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/ Rohit Grover/Claire Wordley
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk

NOTES TO EDITORS

Background to the settlement

In February 2008 law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (now Hausfeld & Co in the UK) and its co-counsel in the United States, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, announced a groundbreaking $200m Settlement on behalf of businesses and individuals, representing between them almost 8 million US and UK passengers who purchased airline tickets from BA and Virgin between 11 August 2004 and 23 March 2006. The Settlement related to litigation brought in the US courts on behalf of passengers who were overcharged for tickets as a result of the airlines’ illegal agreement to fix the prices of fuel surcharges at an artificially high level.

Passengers have until 31 December 2012 to claim refunds, and periodic reminder notices will be sent to class members for whom contact information is available but who have not yet submitted a claim prior to this date.

BA and Virgin will also send reminder notices to eligible passengers in their frequent flyer statements.

About Hausfeld & Co LLP

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAA has illegally deprived former student-athletes from receiving any compensation for the use of their images and likenesses in numerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales and rentals, photograph sales, video games, “stock footage” clips sold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales, and rebroadcasts of “classic” games.

Class representative Ed O’Bannon was named the Most Outstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, in which he led his team to the national championship. Mr. O’Bannon’s image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs and photographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and its business partners, in stock footage available for sale to corporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensed by the NCAA. Mr. O’Bannon’s games also appear on television as part of the rebroadcast of “classic” games.

“College sports has become a multi-billion dollar business due to thousands of former student-athletes like myself. I’m participating in this case to stand up on behalf of all former players who have been treated unfairly,” said Mr. O’Bannon. “It is not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basic fairness.”

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin the NCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protect students in the future. Plaintiffs also seek damages for all those former Division I men’s basketball and football players whose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years.

“No one has a right to own or control another persons’ image or likeness for eternity without providing fair compensation,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “Former student athletes should have a voice in how their own images or likenesses – once they are no longer students -- are used throughout their lifetime.”

Hausfeld LLP has retained Sonny Vaccaro, recognized as a long-time advocate for amateur athlete rights, as an unpaid consultant. “I’ve spent many years advocating for the rights of amateur athletes,” said Mr. Vaccaro. “I’m very pleased that a court will now have the opportunity to fairly examine issues about former student-athletes’ rights in merchandise that uses their images.”

Hausfeld LLP is joined by Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Heins Mills & Olson, LLP, Zelle, Hofmann Voelbel & Mason, LLP and many other antitrust law firms, on the complaint.

About Hausfeld LLP
Mr. O’Bannon’s lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, is Chairman of Washington, DC-based Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, environmental law and securities fraud. Mr. Hausfeld is regarded as one of the world’s preeminent civil litigators and antitrust experts, and has recovered billions of dollars for his clients throughout the world in matters ranging from price fixing cartels to victims of forced and slave labor during and after World War II. Mr. Hausfeld also currently serves as counsel for numerous South African victims of the apartheid regime, alleging that the defendant multi-national corporations aided and abetted the commission of crimes against humanity by the security forces of the regime.

Mr. Hausfeld is joined in the complaint by antitrust attorneys Michael Lehmann, Megan Jones, Jon King, and Art Bailey, Jr., also of Hausfeld LLP.

In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Media Contact

Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
brian@lustigcommunications.com

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAA has illegally deprived former student-athletes from receiving any compensation for the use of their images and likenesses in numerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales and rentals, photograph sales, video games, “stock footage” clips sold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales, and rebroadcasts of “classic” games.

Class representative Ed O’Bannon was named the Most Outstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, in which he led his team to the national championship. Mr. O’Bannon’s image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs and photographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and its business partners, in stock footage available for sale to corporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensed by the NCAA. Mr. O’Bannon’s games also appear on television as part of the rebroadcast of “classic” games.

“College sports has become a multi-billion dollar business due to thousands of former student-athletes like myself. I’m participating in this case to stand up on behalf of all former players who have been treated unfairly,” said Mr. O’Bannon. “It is not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basic fairness.”

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin the NCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protect students in the future. Plaintiffs also seek damages for all those former Division I men’s basketball and football players whose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years.

“No one has a right to own or control another persons’ image or likeness for eternity without providing fair compensation,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “Former student athletes should have a voice in how their own images or likenesses – once they are no longer students -- are used throughout their lifetime.”

Hausfeld LLP has retained Sonny Vaccaro, recognized as a long-time advocate for amateur athlete rights, as an unpaid consultant. “I’ve spent many years advocating for the rights of amateur athletes,” said Mr. Vaccaro. “I’m very pleased that a court will now have the opportunity to fairly examine issues about former student-athletes’ rights in merchandise that uses their images.”

Hausfeld LLP is joined by Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Heins Mills & Olson, LLP, Zelle, Hofmann Voelbel & Mason, LLP and many other antitrust law firms, on the complaint.

About Hausfeld LLP
Mr. O’Bannon’s lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, is Chairman of Washington, DC-based Hausfeld LLP, a global claimants’ law firm providing litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, environmental law and securities fraud. Mr. Hausfeld is regarded as one of the world’s preeminent civil litigators and antitrust experts, and has recovered billions of dollars for his clients throughout the world in matters ranging from price fixing cartels to victims of forced and slave labor during and after World War II. Mr. Hausfeld also currently serves as counsel for numerous South African victims of the apartheid regime, alleging that the defendant multi-national corporations aided and abetted the commission of crimes against humanity by the security forces of the regime.

Mr. Hausfeld is joined in the complaint by antitrust attorneys Michael Lehmann, Megan Jones, Jon King, and Art Bailey, Jr., also of Hausfeld LLP.

In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Media Contact

Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
301.775.6203
brian@lustigcommunications.com

A federal district court in the Northern District of California has appointed Hausfeld LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to be interim lead counsel in charge of consolidated class action cases raising antitrust or right of publicity claims.

Please click here if you are a former student athlete and are interested in receiving more information about this case.

Litigation could herald group action

Parker settlement and unique after-the-event insurance policy offers claimants valuable cooperation and ‘no-risk’ recourse to the courts

Leading global claimants law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has commenced a High Court action against Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited (Dunlop) for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. The cartel took place during the period from at least 1986 to 2007 and involved five other leading manufacturers of marine hose, all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of the rubber hose which is used to transfer oil between storage facilities and/or buoys.

Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company (Waha), the second biggest oil producer in Libya. The company made significant purchases of marine hose from Dunlop and the other cartelists during the cartel period. In criminal proceedings brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Dunlop executives have already admitted that the overcharge arising from the cartel amounted to at least 15%. Hausfeld also confirmed it has been and is in the process of being instructed by additional claimants seeking to take action against Dunlop.

Hausfeld’s global settlement in March 2009 with Parker ITR, one of the other marine hose cartelists, provides substantial cooperation benefits to claimants (see www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose or www.marinehoseclaims.com). That settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the OFT against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for this action against Dunlop. Furthermore, in order to allow Waha to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an agreement with after-the-event insurer FirstAssist to provide Waha with protection against disbursements and adverse cost risks arising from the case.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld, comments:

“This action follows our groundbreaking settlement agreement with Dunlop’s fellow cartelist Parker ITR, whereby any of Parker ITR’s customers are able to claim compensation in respect of their losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was bought, and provides for Parker ITR’s co-operation in bringing claims against the other cartelists.

“We are now commencing this action against Dunlop in order to offer Waha and other aggrieved purchasers a further means of recouping their losses arising from the cartel with the benefit of an innovative insurance and funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs and maximises claimants’ recovery.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover /Claire Wordley
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the marine hose cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.
• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of marine hose.
• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.
• The cartel is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice and criminal proceedings have been brought in the US against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel, which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals and guilty pleas by three cartelists (Dunlop, Manuli, and Trelleborg). Dunlop, Trelleborg, Bridgestone, Yokohama, and Parker ITR have each settled their US class action liability for a total of more than $21 million.
• In addition, the OFT brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who co-ordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the three individuals. There is a parallel European Commission investigation into the cartel which led to a decision fining the cartelists a total of €131 million in January 2009.

Background – the Parker ITR settlement

The settlement incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in US commerce, into an interest bearing escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in US commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss;

• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker ITR but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of extensive co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists; and

• Claims are being administered by an independent claims administrator, FRA, which has already sent a first wave of direct mail notice to claimants and published notice in international and trade publications.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

For further information on the settlement, go to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

Litigation could herald group action

Parker settlement and unique after-the-event insurance policy offers claimants valuable cooperation and ‘no-risk’ recourse to the courts

Leading global claimants law firm Hausfeld & Co LLP (Hausfeld) has commenced a High Court action against Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited (Dunlop) for its involvement in the marine hose cartel. The cartel took place during the period from at least 1986 to 2007 and involved five other leading manufacturers of marine hose, all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of the rubber hose which is used to transfer oil between storage facilities and/or buoys.

Hausfeld has issued the claim on behalf of Waha Oil Company (Waha), the second biggest oil producer in Libya. The company made significant purchases of marine hose from Dunlop and the other cartelists during the cartel period. In criminal proceedings brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Dunlop executives have already admitted that the overcharge arising from the cartel amounted to at least 15%. Hausfeld also confirmed it has been and is in the process of being instructed by additional claimants seeking to take action against Dunlop.

Hausfeld’s global settlement in March 2009 with Parker ITR, one of the other marine hose cartelists, provides substantial cooperation benefits to claimants (see www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose or www.marinehoseclaims.com). That settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the OFT against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for this action against Dunlop. Furthermore, in order to allow Waha to bring this action, Hausfeld negotiated an agreement with after-the-event insurer FirstAssist to provide Waha with protection against disbursements and adverse cost risks arising from the case.

Anthony Maton, partner in Hausfeld, comments:

“This action follows our groundbreaking settlement agreement with Dunlop’s fellow cartelist Parker ITR, whereby any of Parker ITR’s customers are able to claim compensation in respect of their losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was bought, and provides for Parker ITR’s co-operation in bringing claims against the other cartelists.

“We are now commencing this action against Dunlop in order to offer Waha and other aggrieved purchasers a further means of recouping their losses arising from the cartel with the benefit of an innovative insurance and funding package that minimises the threat of incurring prohibitive legal costs and maximises claimants’ recovery.”

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

Beth Farrer/Rohit Grover /Claire Wordley
Spada
Tel: 020 7269 1430
bethfarrer@spada.co.uk / rohit.grover@spada.co.uk / clairewordley@spada.co.uk

Background – the marine hose cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.
• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of marine hose.
• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.
• The cartel is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice and criminal proceedings have been brought in the US against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel, which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals and guilty pleas by three cartelists (Dunlop, Manuli, and Trelleborg). Dunlop, Trelleborg, Bridgestone, Yokohama, and Parker ITR have each settled their US class action liability for a total of more than $21 million.
• In addition, the OFT brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who co-ordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the three individuals. There is a parallel European Commission investigation into the cartel which led to a decision fining the cartelists a total of €131 million in January 2009.

Background – the Parker ITR settlement

The settlement incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in US commerce, into an interest bearing escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in US commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss;

• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker ITR but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of extensive co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists; and

• Claims are being administered by an independent claims administrator, FRA, which has already sent a first wave of direct mail notice to claimants and published notice in international and trade publications.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

For further information on the settlement, go to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, is widely recognised as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world.

The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades.

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global plaintiffs’ law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. the firm has operations in Washington, D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com.
 

Hausfeld LLP, co-counsel to the plaintiffs in the litigation that alleged the two airlines had illegally schemed to fix artificially high fuel surcharge prices, said Wednesday a settlement had been reached with the three objectors, who had been waging a battle in U.S. courts to get the U.K. portion of the multimillion-dollar 2008 settlement canceled.

In February 2008, British Airways PLC and Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. agreed to settle claims brought by passengers who sued the airlines for fixing fuel prices on international flights. The airlines agreed to pay $59 million to American passengers and £73.5 million to British passengers who bought long-haul tickets from either BA or Virgin between Aug. 11, 2004, and March 23, 2006.

The deal resolved an antitrust class action filed against the carriers in a U.S. federal court, and marked the first time an action has been settled collectively under both U.S. and U.K. law, plaintiffs' lawyers said.

Hausfeld LLP said Wednesday it was able to reach a settlement with the three UK citizens, whose objections had stalled payments to U.K. victims of the fuel surcharge scheme.

Last fall, Duncan Vere-Hopegood, Dominic Hagger and Tracy Hagger, all members of the U.K. settlement class, raised objections to the U.K. portion of the settlement reached with BA and Virgin, arguing that U.S. courts should not have assumed jurisdiction over U.K. claims.

In an October court filing, the objectors argued that antitrust claims involving U.K. victims properly belonged in U.K. courts, and said the settlement could provide future encouragement for forum shopping, noting that U.S. antitrust laws are typically more generous to plaintiffs than other legal systems.

“Indeed it opens the Pandora's box of antitrust lawsuits throughout the world being resolved by U.S. courts,” the objectors argued. “This case is not just an exceptional case, it is unprecedented. Compelling circumstances clearly exist to decline jurisdiction.”

But Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California disagreed, saying in an October order that the U.K. settlement class claims and the U.S. settlement class claims stemmed from the same controversy, allowing the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

“If defendants had objected to jurisdiction, or if the settlement was a traditional opt-out settlement rather than an opt-in, or if there was already a similar case pending in the United Kingdom, the court agrees that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction might be unwarranted. In the unique circumstances of this case, however, the court finds that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate,” the court said. The objectors appealed that decision in November.

Michael D. Hausfeld, chairman of Hausfeld LLP, confirmed Wednesday that the objectors have now dropped their appeal, but declined to comment on the terms of the agreement made with the three objectors. An attorney for the objectors could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

An estimated 5.6 million passengers stand to benefit under the U.K. portion of the settlement, and refunds will be paid to U.K. claimants soon. Passengers have until December 2012 to claim their refunds.

“Since we announced this settlement, over 100,000 individuals and businesses have applied for refunds, which were due to be processed in the last quarter of 2008,” said Michael D. Hausfeld, chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “While it was disappointing that this unprecedented objection was raised in the first place, we are pleased a settlement has now been reached with the objectors – meaning that refunds will now be processed promptly.”

Each ticket purchaser can recover one-third of the fuel levy. BA raised its fuel surcharge price $4 a flight in May 2004 and later raised it numerous times to a level of more than $125 for international flights.

Virgin introduced a fuel surcharge a week after BA. The plaintiffs alleged that the two airlines' surcharges rose in a lockstep pattern, both repeatedly rising within days of each other.

BA revealed in June 2007 that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.K. Office of Fair Trading were looking into alleged cartel activity related to the pricing of passenger air transportation, including fuel surcharges.

A deluge of class actions followed. More than 90 cases were consolidated into the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs are represented in this matter by Hausfeld LLP and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy.

British Airways is represented in this matter by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP and Wright Robinson Osthimer & Tatum. Virgin is represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Cairncross & Hempelmann PS and Richards McGettigan Reilly & West PC.

The case is In Re: International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, case number M:06-cv-01793, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Today, Hausfeld, which represents two flower importers Emerald Supplies Ltd and Southern Glass House Produce Ltd, is requesting leave to appeal from Justice Morritt, the Vice-Chancellor of the High Court, after he ruled on 8 April that the representative aspect of the damages action should be struck out.

Morritt found that the members of the claim had not been identified sufficiently: a point Hausfeld will dispute. The claimants believe that there only needs to be a definition for the group, and whether anybody falls within that definition is a matter for trial.

Hausfeld was seeking to add around 180 extra claimants to the action but BA had tried to block this in a hearing at the court on 2 April, arguing, inter alia, that there were potential conflicts of interest between the claimants, since any damage suffered would be 'passed on' to differing degrees depending on their position in the distribution chain. The court agreed with this line of reasoning.

This will also be challenged by the claimants, who believe that any conflict of interest between the members of the class is unknown since the law is undecided. Furthermore, this should be dealt with by the court at trial.

Justice Morritt, on the other hand, stated in his judgment that claimants must be identified at the outset and the law was not aimed at requiring further litigation to determine a class.

If the judge refuses the claimants leave to appeal – a scenario many say is likely – then Hausfeld will have another 21 days to go to the Court of Appeal in pursuit of permission.

Each of the 180 claims will have to be lodged separately if the High Court’s ruling from 8 April stands.
 

Since summer 2007, roughly 30 companies have joined a class action against the country’s four largest freight lines: Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Southern Norfolk, and CSX. They allege that in 2003, the rail companies entered into a price-fixing scheme regarding fuel surcharges, the rate the rail companies charged customers to cover the cost of diesel fuel.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Paul Friedman is presiding over the class action. It has taken almost two full years for the case just to reach discovery, and Friedman is still deciding how that process will proceed. But with a docket chock-full of marquee firms on both sides, it has the potential to cost the industry serious money.

The rail lines—all Fortune 500 companies—have geared up a list of top D.C. firms for their defense, including Mayer Brown and Steptoe & Johnson for Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Crowell & Moring for CSX; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Kaye Scholer for Norfolk Southern; and Howrey for Union Pacific.

While the issues might seem arcane, the money involved in any award could be huge. According to Supply Chain Digest Research, a trade publication, Union Pacific alone may have overcharged customers by $1.16 billion, with the other three following close behind. Michael Hausfeld, whose firm, Hausfeld LLP, is co-lead counsel with Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, says he believes a judgment in his clients’ favor could cost the rail lines hundreds of millions of dollars.

In the last several years, transportation companies have weathered a storm of antitrust litigation, with government prosecutors and private plaintiffs alike targeting airlines, trucking companies, and rail operators over their pricing practices. Hausfeld himself has been involved in class actions against air carriers and trucking companies. He says the rail case fits into a larger controversy over the way the transportation industry has operated over the past decade.

“You’ve got to look at the transportation industry generally,” he says. “From trucking to airlines to railroads. Each saw increasing fuel costs that they expensed as a fuel surcharge” as a way to inflate their profits. He says his firm is looking into the possibility of more such suits in the future.

Several defense lawyers declined to comment for this story or did not return phone calls. Those who did speak for the article generally played down the significance of the case. Right now, says Howrey partner Alan Wiseman, plaintiffs are just overeager to sue.

“There’s a herd mentality amongst the plaintiffs’ antitrust lawyers,” Wiseman says. “If one case is filed, there are 50 antitrust lawyers who will follow.”

He says Howrey has only devoted a “relatively small” number of lawyers to the case.
 

For more information, please contact Michael P. Lehmann.

* During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilise the prices of marine hose.

* Alongside Parker ITR s.r.l., the five other cartelists are: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd. This cartel is being investigated in the US by the United States Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals and guilty pleas by two cartelists (Dunlop and Manuli). [www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/December/08-at-1055.html]

* In In re: Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888 (S.D. Fla.), the Court certified a class consisting of dozens of U.S. purchasers in an order on July 31, 2009 (Click Here to see the order). In that same order, the court also gave preliminary approval to $22 million in settlements covering all of the cartelists except Manuli, as well as settlements with several of the Defendant companies’ individual employees.

* In addition, the UK Office of Fair Trading brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who co-ordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the three individuals. [www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/72-08] Additionally the European Commission recently fined the marine hose cartel a total of € 131 million for infringements of the EU competition rules. [europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do]

Parker Global Settlement

Hausfeld LLP and its London arm Hausfeld & Co. LLP recently announced a groundbreaking global settlement agreement with Parker ITR regarding its involvement in the marine hose cartel. The settlement allows any purchaser of marine hose from Parker anywhere in the world, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, to claim compensation in respect of losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was purchased from.

This settlement agreement represents the first private resolution of a company’s global cartel liability without any arbitration, mediation or litigation – creating opportunities never before possible for dispute resolution and providing a new model for global cartel settlements going forward.

Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement, which incorporates the following elements:

* Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 31 January 2002 to 2 May 2007 (the “Settlement Period”), other than marine hose that was sold in US commerce, into an interest bearing escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

* In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than purchasers of marine hose in US commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

* An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

* The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the Settlement Period, other than direct purchasers in US commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss;

* Lawyers, notice and administration fees and costs will be paid by Parker ITR on top of the settlement funds and not out of those settlement funds. Thus, no claimant’s approved recovery from this settlement will be reduced for fees or costs;

* Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to claim against the Parker ITR settlement but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of extensive co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists; and

* Claims will be administered by an independent claims administrator, FRA.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

* Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

* Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

Parker ITR’s cooperation under the settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for subsequent legal proceedings against Parker ITR’s co-conspirators in Europe. If you are a victim of the cartel, please contact Hausfeld & Co LLP (contact details below) to discuss your legal options in Europe.

This is not a United States opt-out style class action settlement. It is a private opt-in settlement and there is no court approval process. Claimants must sign on to the settlement and release their claims against Parker ITR in order to receive its benefits. Settlement will be way of private contractual agreement between Parker ITR and claimants, on standard terms offered by Parker ITR. All claimants who participate in the settlement may remain anonymous.

If any claimant has direct purchases of marine hose in US commerce from Parker ITR or any other cartelist, they will be able to seek a recovery under settlements reached with US class counsel. US class counsel recently sought preliminary approval of these settlements in the US before a Federal Judge in In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888 (S.D. Fla.).

For further information on the settlement and how purchasers can sign up to the settlement, please refer to www.marinehoseclaims.com or contact:

Michael Hausfeld or Brian Ratner in Washington, DC at
Telephone: 202.540.7200
Fax: 202.540.7201

For further information on Hausfeld’s London action against Dunlop, please contact:

Anthony Maton or Scott Campbell in London at:
Telephone: (00 44) 20 3170 7725
Fax: (00 44) 20 3170 7729

For more information, please contact Megan E. Jones or Robert E. Eisler.

This settlement agreement represents the first private resolution of a company’s global cartel liability without any arbitration, mediation or litigation – creating opportunities never before possible for dispute resolution and providing a new model for global cartel settlements going forward. Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement.

The marine hose cartel occurred between 1986-2007 and, in addition to Parker ITR, involved five other leading manufacturers (Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.), all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose – the flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.

“The Parker settlement is truly revolutionary in the context of global dispute resolution, one that succeeded despite many believing such a private settlement structure could never be achieved outside the United States,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “This settlement demonstrates how powerful the results can be when forward thinking corporations like Parker ITR remain open-minded to creative solutions to address legal issues; and in this case a fair resolution was reached benefiting all parties concerned – most importantly the claimants.”

This cartel is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain individuals involved in the cartel, leading to guilty pleas and prison sentences. The Marine Hose settlement allows any purchaser of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, to claim compensation in respect of losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was purchased from geographically.

“The Parker ITR settlement represents a huge leap forward for the settlement of private cartel claims, and will be the model for the settlement of many global disputes going forward. For the first time all victims of a cartel will be able to come forward and claim financial compensation and/or co-operation without the need for intervention of a court process. This is a commercial business resolution for a commercial business dispute,” adds Anthony Maton, Partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP – the firm’s London office.

For further information on the settlement and how purchasers can sign up to the settlement, please refer to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose/ or contact:

Michael Hausfeld or Brian Ratner in Washington, DC at
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
bratner@hausfeldllp.com
Telephone: 202.540.7200
Fax: 202.540.7201

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing conflict-free litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Background – Marine Hose Cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.

• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst six of the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose.

• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.

• This cartel is being investigated in the US by the United States Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals; as well as guilty pleas by two cartelists (Dunlop and Manuli).

• All of the cartelists except Manuli have collectively settled their US class action liability for more than $21 million.

• The UK Office of Fair Trading brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who coordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the individuals. Additionally the European Commission recently fined the marine hose cartel a total of € 131 million for infringements of the EU competition rules.

Background – Parker ITR Settlement

Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement, which incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in U.S. commerce, into an escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);

• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;

• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;

• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in U.S. commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss; and

• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and

• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

Parker ITR’s cooperation under the settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for subsequent legal proceedings against Parker ITR’s co-conspirators in Europe.

Media Contact:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203
 

This settlement agreement represents the first private resolution of a company’s global cartel liability without any arbitration, mediation or litigation – creating opportunities never before possible for dispute resolution and providing a new model for global cartel settlements going forward. Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement.

The marine hose cartel occurred between 1986-2007 and, in addition to Parker ITR, involved five other leading manufacturers (Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.), all of whom conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose – the flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.

“The Parker settlement is truly revolutionary in the context of global dispute resolution, one that succeeded despite many believing such a private settlement structure could never be achieved outside the United States,” said Michael Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld LLP. “This settlement demonstrates how powerful the results can be when forward thinking corporations like Parker ITR remain open-minded to creative solutions to address legal issues; and in this case a fair resolution was reached benefiting all parties concerned – most importantly the claimants.”

This cartel is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain individuals involved in the cartel, leading to guilty pleas and prison sentences. The Marine Hose settlement allows any purchaser of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, to claim compensation in respect of losses arising from the cartel, irrespective of where they reside or where the marine hose was purchased from geographically.

“The Parker ITR settlement represents a huge leap forward for the settlement of private cartel claims, and will be the model for the settlement of many global disputes going forward. For the first time all victims of a cartel will be able to come forward and claim financial compensation and/or co-operation without the need for intervention of a court process. This is a commercial business resolution for a commercial business dispute,” adds Anthony Maton, Partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP – the firm’s London office.

For further information on the settlement and how purchasers can sign up to the settlement, please refer to www.marinehoseclaims.com or www.hausfeldllp.com/marinehose/ or contact:

Michael Hausfeld or Brian Ratner in Washington, DC at
Telephone: 202.540.7200
Fax: 202.540.7201

Or

Anthony Maton, Vincent Smith or Scott Campbell with Hausfeld & Co LLP in London at
Telephone (Switchboard): 011 44 0203 170 7725
Fax: 011 44 0203 170 7729

About Hausfeld LLP
Hausfeld LLP, based in Washington, DC, is a global claimants’ law firm providing conflict-free litigation service in the areas of antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, environmental law and securities fraud. In addition to the Washington office, the firm offers clients global access to justice with current operations in London, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco; and is establishing affiliations in multiple locations throughout Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America, Canada and Australia. For additional information about Hausfeld LLP and its services, please visit http://www.hausfeldllp.com or call 202.540.7200.

Background – Marine Hose Cartel

• Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities and/or buoys.
• During the period 1986 to 2007 a worldwide cartel existed amongst six of the leading manufacturers of marine hose to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of marine hose.
• The cartelists include: Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd, Bridgestone Corporation, Trelleborg Industry SA, Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A. and Yokohama Rubber Co Ltd.
• This cartel is being investigated in the US by the United States Department of Justice, and criminal proceedings have been brought in the United States against certain of the individuals involved in the cartel which have led to guilty pleas and prison sentences for those individuals; as well as guilty pleas by two cartelists (Dunlop and Manuli).
• All of the cartelists except Manuli have collectively settled their US class action liability for more than $21 million.
• The UK Office of Fair Trading brought criminal charges against two Dunlop executives and Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive who coordinated the cartel, in London under the Enterprise Act 2002, which led to prison sentences for the individuals. Additionally the European Commission recently fined the marine hose cartel a total of € 131 million for infringements of the EU competition rules.

Background – Parker ITR Settlement

Major oil company purchasers and other significant marine hose purchasers have already signed or agreed to sign the settlement agreement, which incorporates the following elements:

• Parker ITR has already paid an amount representing 16% of its sale of marine hose during the period 2002 to 2007, other than marine hose that was directly sold in U.S. commerce, into an escrow fund in London held with Citibank (Parker ITR was owned by other companies prior to 2002 – the pre-existing liability for the cartel remains with those companies);
• In return for giving up rights to sue Parker ITR and its parents or affiliates, purchasers of marine hose from Parker ITR, other than direct purchasers of marine hose in U.S. commerce, can claim against the fund created by Parker ITR;
• An independent expert will determine how much of that fund goes to each Parker ITR purchaser;
• The presumption is that direct purchasers from Parker ITR during the period 2002 to 2007, other than direct purchasers in U.S. commerce, will be entitled to 16% of purchases in the period unless they have passed on their loss; and
• Purchasers from other cartelists will not be entitled to compensation from Parker but, if settling, will obtain the benefit of co-operation from Parker ITR in pursuing claims against other cartelists.

Accordingly, all who settle are entitled to the following from Parker ITR:

• Parker ITR has agreed to guarantee against the payment of adverse costs judgments associated with litigation subsequently initiated outside the United States against any of the co-conspirators; and
• Under wide ranging co-operation obligations, Parker ITR will make available interviews, declarations and affidavits, depositions, testimony at trial and production and authentication of documents that prove the cartel.

Parker ITR’s cooperation under the settlement, the European Commission’s infringement decision regarding the cartel, and the criminal charges brought by the UK Office of Fair Trading against individuals involved in the cartel form the basis for subsequent legal proceedings against Parker ITR’s co-conspirators in Europe.

Media Contact:
Brian Lustig
Lustig Communications for Hausfeld LLP
Brian@LustigCommunications.com
301.775.6203

The suit represents China's growing economic clout in global markets and has raised important new issues concerning the assertion of a government’s role in the pricing and output decisions of the Chinese manufacturing defendants.

On November 6, 2008, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

For more information, please contact the Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on the matter, Michael D. Hausfeld, Brian A. Ratner, Brent W. Landau or Melinda R. Coolidge.

Internet links:
Antitrust Suit Proceeds Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers                                                               http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425997056

Antitrust Case Against Chinese Manufacturers of Vitamin C Moves Forward                              http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1196279893783

 

In a later trial concerning four of the Class Plaintiffs’ remaining unsettled Vitamin B4 (choline chloride) claims, a federal jury in Washington unanimously found Japan’s second largest trading company, Mitsui & Co., Ltd., its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., DuCoa, LP, a choline chloride manufacturer based in Highland, Illinois, and DuCoa’s general partner, DCV, Inc., liable for participating in the cartel and ordered them to pay $49,539,234, before trebling to $148,617,702 under the federal antitrust laws. The case was subsequently settled against the Mitsui defendants.

On January 27, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement with DCV and DuCoa under which those defendants will transfer essentially all of their assets to purchasers of choline chloride.

Further information about the settlement is available at http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/vit/ or can be obtained by contacting the attorneys working on the matter, Michael D. Hausfeld, Brian A. Ratner or Brent W. Landau.

Internet links:

» Six Big Vitamin Makers Are Said to Agree to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Pricing Lawsuit

» 4 Companies Found Liable In Price Fixing Of Vitamin B4

» Settlement Website

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King, in our San Francisco office.
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, Jon T. King, or Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. in our San Francisco office, or Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, D.C. office.
 

For more information about the case and the settlement, please go to the following link: http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com/taq/. For more information about the case, please contact Brian Ratner in Washington, D.C.
 

On November 7, 2008, the Honorable Paul L. Friedman denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations were plausible and that Plaintiffs were entitled to take discovery on their claims.

For more information, please contact Steig D. Olson or William P. Butterfield.
 

For more information, please contact Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, DC office.
 

For more information, please contact Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, DC office.
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King in our San Francisco office.
 

The court has granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and has twice denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court also granted final approval to a settlement with Defendants UPM-Kymmene and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Raflatac, Inc., which calls for those defendants to pay $8.25 million and cooperate with Plaintiffs.

For more information, please contact Brian A. Ratner, Brent W. Landau, and Reena Armillay Gambhir.
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King, in our San Francisco office.
 

On February 11, 2009, Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had alleged a plausible conspiracy and were entitled to take discovery on their claims. 
 
For more information, please contact Robert G. Eisler or Steig D. Olson.

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King in our San Francisco office.
 

On May 11, 2007, the Court granted final approval to a settlement under which Defendants will create a $13 million Settlement Fund, comply with certain requirements regarding bundled contracts, and pay the costs of notice and administration of the settlement.

If you have any questions regarding this litigation, please contact Brent W. Landau.

Further information about the Settlement, including a claim form, is available at www.endosettlement.com.
 

Hausfeld LLP filed the first lawsuit in the country alleging that a cartel of egg producers through the auspices of their trade groups -- United Egg Producers (UEP); United States Egg Marketers (USEM); and United Egg Association (UEA) -- engaged in an unlawful scheme to artificially inflate egg prices by restricting the supply of both laying hens and eggs across the country.

The Firm has been appointed by the Court to be one of the four co-lead firms responsible for managing this litigation on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of eggs.

If you have questions or information about this case, please contact Megan E. Jones, James J. Pizzirusso, or Brent W.  Landau
 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock, or Jon T. King in our San Francisco office.
 

For more information, please contact Robert G. Eisler in our Philadelphia office or Hilary K. Scherrer in our Washington, DC office.

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Jon T. King, or Arthur N. Bailey, Jr.
 

The Court appointed Hausfeld LLP as co-lead counsel with Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy to represent the potential class of purchasers harmed by the conspiracy. Following over a year of difficult negotiations, expert analysis, and discovery, Plaintiffs negotiated a comprehensive $200 million settlement of the claims of both U.S. purchasers and U.K. purchasers who choose to file a claim for a refund. The groundbreaking settlement, primarily negotiated by Chairperson Michael Hausfeld, represents the first time foreign purchasers have been afforded an opportunity to participate in a settlement on an equal footing with purchasers in the United States. The settlement provides for a refund of 33% of the surcharge paid on each ticket purchased during the conspiracy period, an amount Plaintiffs' expert determined was approximately 100% of the damages caused by the conspiracy. The settlement was heralded by Judge Breyer as “a very good result” for the class. See September 26, 2008 Hearing Transcript, at 29.

Any individual or entity that purchased an airline ticket from BA or VA for long haul travel in the United States or the United Kingdom during the class period is eligible for a refund under the terms of the Settlement. Corporate purchasers who paid for travel for their employees during this time period are eligible for a refund for each qualifying employee ticket purchased. Complete details of the settlements are available on the Settlement Administrator’s website created to notify the class, www.airpassengerrefund.com. Three objectors in the United Kingdom have appealed the Court’s order approving the settlements, so all payments to class members will be delayed until that appeal is resolved.

The air passenger case is being litigated by an international team of attorneys providing expertise on both United States and United Kingdom law. In the United States, the action is being litigated by Michael D. Hausfeld, and Michael P. Lehmann. In the United Kingdom, Anthony Maton and Scott Campbell are litigating the action.
 

Following raids by law enforcement agencies around the world on February 14, 2006, Hausfeld LLP attorneys filed class action lawsuits in the United States seeking to recover the damages inflicted by the conspiracy. The consolidated action, which is now pending in the Eastern District of New York, seeks damages for overcharges incurred with respect to air cargo shipments to, from and within the United States. The firm was appointed co-lead counsel for the class by the Court. In addition, due to Hausfeld LLP's foreign law expertise and European presence, the firm also was appointed foreign purchaser lead counsel.

Shortly after filing the lawsuits, Michael Hausfeld, Chairperson of Hausfeld LLP, negotiated an innovative settlement with Defendant Lufthansa, whereby the company paid $85 million to resolve its U.S. liability and agreed to provide extensive cooperation with the plaintiffs in the United States as they prosecute their claims against the other Defendants. Hausfeld LLP represents both large corporate purchasers of air shipping services such Volvo, H&M, and IKEA, as well as small and medium sized companies. We represent clients headquartered in the United States, Europe, South America, India, and China.

On August 21, 2009, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that “the admissions of price-fixing by so many of the defendants certainly ‘are suggestive enough to render a § 1 conspiracy plausible.’” The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that claims involving import commerce were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. The case will now proceed into the discovery phase.

In addition to its work in the United States, Hausfeld LLP’s London affiliate, Hausfeld & Co., has filed an action in the High Court in London, Emerald Supplies, Ltd. et al. v. British Airways, seeking to recover damages incurred by shippers who shipped goods by air to, from, and within the European Union. This action is being pursued on a representative basis on behalf of all entities that elect to join the case. As in the United States, Hausfeld LLP represents both smaller businesses who overpaid as a result of the conspiracy and major corporate purchasers of air freight shipping services, such as Universal Music and Dana Corp., that suffered tens of millions of dollars of damages as a result of the cartel's activities.

The Air Cargo action in the United States is being litigated primarily by Michael D. Hausfeld, Bill P. Butterfield, and Brent W. Landau.  The action in the United Kingdom is being litigated by Vincent Smith, Anthony Maton, and Scott Campbell.

 

For more information, please contact attorneys Michael P. Lehmann, Jon T. King or Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. in our San Francisco office.

Europe has seen a rise in consumer and investor activism, and an increasing willingness by legislators to allow people to pursue mass grievances through the courts has opened the door to more legal claims.

“Are class actions coming to Europe? Under the name of ‘collective actions’ they’re here already,” Malcolm Carlisle, managing director of the European Justice Forum (EJF) says.

Several countries, including Sweden and the Netherlands, have provisions for class action-style litigation, while several others, including France and Italy, are mulling proposals for systems of their own.

The European Commission is also considering whether to recommend class actions for those affected by offences such as price-fixing.

Class actions uncontroversial

Class actions are, in themselves, uncontroversial. The ability to group together large numbers of claims relating to a single issue or company provides an efficient and cost-effective way of settling an issue that would otherwise threaten to clog up the courts for years.

They also provide an opportunity for redress for individuals who cannot afford to bring a claim themselves.

Class actions offer “an effective means of access to justice on behalf of the collective body of victims,” Michael Hausfeld, of leading US litigation law firm Hausfeld LLP says.

But in the United States, where they have been a feature of the legal landscape for decades, class actions have been hailed by some, but blamed by others for fuelling a multi-billion dollar litigation industry.

Critics have described the class action process in the United States as a ‘toxic cocktail’, in which several elements combine to make litigation risky to defend for companies. As a result, many choose to settle class actions, paying out millions of dollars, even if they have little merit, it is argued.

Litigation worry

“If US-style class actions came to Europe they could transform the litigation landscape,” Guy Pendell, a partner in the Dispute Resolution Group at law firm CMS Cameron McKenna says.

“The good news is that it isn’t looking very likely at the moment, because several of the elements that exist in the US to make class actions the ‘toxic cocktail’ simply don’t exist in the UK and Europe. There are not jury trials for that kind of action, there are not contingency fees, there are no punitive damages,” Pendell says.

But others fear that even if a European class action process were not a carbon copy of the costly American system, their introduction would inevitably lead to a rise in litigation.

“There are a lot of people in Europe who think that the American system is a ‘toxic cocktail’ of ingredients, all of which need to be present,” says the EJF’s Carlisle. “They pick off different ingredients of the US system and say we either don’t have that in Europe or we won’t introduce it.

“But you are left with the point that litigation is expensive – and class action litigation is particularly expensive. Who is going to provide that money?

“The only people likely to be willing to do so are law firms or litigation funding firms who will agree to fund the cost of litigation in return for a share of the damages,” Carlisle says. “That strong financial incentive to provide funding is the core of the US system.”

The rise of professional investors willing to bankroll court cases (see Third Party Litigation Funding, 29 Jan) eases the main risk faced by potential litigants in Europe – that they may lose and would be faced with a hefty bill for their opponent’s legal expenses. That is likely to encourage more court claims, argue opponents.

A different way

The EJF is lobbying governments for a civil justice system that seeks to avoid litigation.

Europe’s regulators, ombudsmen and other public authorities, who cover most areas of consumer commerce and whose task is to take action when there is a breach of regulation, have the opportunity to use their influence to encourage the wrongdoer to make voluntary restitution to third parties, it says.

If they do so, the company should earn a lighter sanction from the regulator.

But Hausfeld says none of the firms found guilty of cartel behaviour by the European Commission that he has dealt with have volunteered to compensate their victims. “Their response was that if you want me to pay then make me. That was supposedly the negotiating culture.”

Hausfeld also argues it is not a regulator’s role to wring cash from firms to repay those left out of pocket by price fixing or anticompetitive behaviour.

“If someone steals from you and you know who it was and how much was taken, you deserve to have it back. That is not a government’s function, it’s a function of civil law.”

Recession worries

The fact that a number of countries are considering introducing class actions at a time when a global economic recession is biting deep, poses an unwanted extra headache to business, Carlisle says.

“I’m worried by the relatively easy assumption within government that the US system is an option and they can control it. I simply don’t believe that will be the case,” Carlisle says.

But other companies are often victims of price-fixing as much as consumers, Hausfeld points out. Enabling them to bring collective claims for redress may offer them a lifeline in the bleak economic climate.

“Companies who were reluctant before to pursue claims through litigation probably now find that adding to their net profitability by recovering that which was unlawfully taken is not only a good but a necessary business decision,” Hausfeld says.

“Class actions are not necessarily appropriate for all circumstances. Nor should they be used to ‘extort’ money from companies that have not committed any wrongs. But they provide a legitimate means of providing mass access to justice where there has been a mass wrong,” Hausfeld says.

What Should Companies Do?

As the legal landscape across Europe changes, companies should take steps to protect themselves as part of their risk management strategies.

Businesses should consider the patchwork of legal procedures that are in place in different parts of Europe and their potential exposure in each nation in which they operate. A suit in Bulgaria, which has a full US-style class action system, would have different consequences than one in the Netherlands, for example.

“Companies who are potentially faced with these actions should think about what insurance cover they have in place in the event that, God forbid, the juggernaut heads their way,” Maxine Cupitt, a partner in Cameron McKenna’s Dispute Resolution Group says.

Firms should decide whether they have sufficient product liability insurance to cover claims from a number of countries, some of which could be eye-wateringly high.
They would also be wise to look again at the level of their D&O insurance, to ensure they have adequate cover for lengthy price-fixing investigations that could result in large fines and a resulting class action.

At a time when shell-shocked shareholders are looking for reasons for the steep losses in their portfolios, businesses should also look again at their investor relations.

“Companies should look very carefully at how they pass information to shareholders. In the US a lot of the cases arise from the allegation that information was not disclosed to shareholders soon enough,” John Batch, senior vice president in the FINPRO practice at Marsh says.