|
||||
Current Cases Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation. Multi-billion dollar antitrust class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of rates for airfreight shipping services by dozens of major international airlines. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of airfreight shipping services by coordinating surcharges (fees that air cargo carriers charge in addition to normal shipping rates for specific extra costs, such as “fuel surcharge” or a “security surcharge”), jointly agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of prices, agreeing on yield and allocating customers, all in violation of United States antitrust law and state law. Banana Class Action Settlement. The lawsuit claims that the Defendants consipired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize banana prices, and control and restrict output for bananas sold in the United States , and , as a result, Class members paid higher prices for bananas. The settlements include anyone who purchased bananas within or provided to the United States , directly from Defendants or from any of the alleged co-conspirators, from May 1, 1999 up until the date the Court grants final approval of the settlements. Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation. The Plaintiffs in this case are businesses/entities that directly purchased carbon black products from the Defendants, during the class period, from January 30, 1999 through January 18, 2005. The Defendants are leading companies in the sale and manufacture of carbon black in the United States. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of carbon black in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy was undertaken by a series of coordinated price increase announcements and that as a result, Plaintiffs have paid more for carbon black than they would have absent the alleged conspiracy. Columbus Drywall v. Masco Corporation Settlement. A court has preliminarily approved a proposed partial settlement of a class action lawsuit affecting a “class” or group of residential insulation contractors. The lawsuit claims that Masco Corp. and certain affiliates (“Masco”) and at least five manufacturers or distributors (the “Defendants”) conspired to violate the federal antitrust laws by agreeing to impose and maintain a “spread” between the prices that Masco pays for fiberglass insulation and the prices paid by residential insulation contractors. Defendants CertainTeed Corporation, Guardian Fiberglass, Inc., Guardian Building Products Distribution, Inc. (together “Guardian”), Johns Manville and Knauf have agreed to settle the lawsuit (the “Settlements”). Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation. Beginning in March 2004, numerous class action lawsuits were filed against Defendants by direct purchasers of Cotton Yarn. The cases have been centralized in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into and implemented a contract, combination and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for Cotton Yarn sold in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1. Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of the conspiracy, they and other purchasers of Cotton Yarn paid more for Cotton Yarn than they would have paid absent the conspiracy, and they seek to recover treble damages together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys' fees Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation. The lawsuit is about the price cardholders of Visa-, MasterCard-, or Diners Club-branded payment cards were charged to make transactions in a foreign currency, or with a foreign merchant, between February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006. Plaintiffs challenge how the prices of credit and debit/ATM card foreign transactions were set and disclosed, including claims that Visa, MasterCard, their member banks, and Diners Club conspired to set and conceal fees, typically of 1-3% of foreign transactions, and that Visa and MasterCard inflated their base exchange rates before applying these fees. The Defendants include Visa, MasterCard, Diners Club, Bank of America, Bank One/First USA, Chase, Citibank, MBNA, HSBC/Household, and Washington Mutual/Providian. They deny the Plaintiffs' claims and say they have done nothing wrong, improper, or unlawful. Diamond Class Action Settlement. The claims process has begun in a $295-million Proposed Settlement with De Beers. Both individual consumers and members of the diamond trade are eligible to make a claim under the Proposed Settlement. The Proposed Settlement covers a series of class action lawsuits which allege that De Beers charged anticompetitive prices for the rough diamonds it sold. They also claim that De Beers monopolized the rough diamond market, and disseminated false and misleading advertising. The class action lawsuits only bring claims against De Beers. Under the Proposed Settlement, a $295-million fund has been created. This settlement fund will be distributed to two groups, or classes, of purchasers: the Direct Purchaser Class and the Indirect Purchaser Class. The Direct Purchaser Class includes persons or businesses, other than Diamond Trading Company Sightholders, that purchased any gem diamond directly from De Beers, or one of its diamond mining competitors, between September 20, 1997 and March 31, 2006. The Indirect Purchaser Class includes persons or businesses that purchased gem diamonds, diamond jewelry, or other products containing diamonds from someone other than De Beers or one of its mining competitors between January 1, 1994 and March 31, 2006. The Indirect Purchaser Class is further divided into two subclasses: the Consumer Subclass, which includes persons who purchased gem diamonds and diamond products for their own use or for a gift, and the Reseller Subclass, which are businesses which purchased gem diamonds and diamond products for resale. The claim filing deadline is May 19, 2008. credit card overcharges will be approved and ready for payment by December 31, 2008. Merchants who installed PIN pads and accepted PIN debit transactions during the period October 1992 to July 2003 are also eligible for damages based on their acceptance of PIN debit. However, there are insufficient funds for a PIN debit distribution at this time. Lead Counsel expects that payments for online PIN debit overcharges will be made to all or most qualifying Class Members in December 2008 when the Settlement Fund is replenished. Lead Counsel has been working to effect a securitization of the Settlement Fund (which would reduce multiple, annual Visa and MasterCard payments to a single lump sum), but current market conditions have made securitization unsuccessful at this time. Lead Counsel believes that a future securitization of the Fund and/or the upcoming scheduled deposit of annual payments due to the Fund by Visa and MasterCard will allow Lead Counsel to proceed with the PIN debit distribution in 2008.
|
Contact Information: 500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Harrison, New York, 10528 | Phone: 914-630-5000 | Fax: 914-630-5001 Site Navigation: About Us | Our Clients | Current Cases | Previous Cases | Contact Us ©2008
Class Action Refund LLC. All rights reserved. |