Industrial

Containerboard Products Direct Purchaser Settlement

1:10-cv-05711 US District Court Northern Illinois Eastern Division

Overview

Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant companies unlawfully conspired to fix, raise or maintain the prices of Containerboard Products purchased in the United States. The lawsuit claims that any person or entity that pu​​​rchased Containerboard Products directly from any Defendant company during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market.

Class

Individuals and entities who, between February 15, 2004 and November 8, 2010 (the “Class Period”), purchased Containerboard Products for use or delivery in the United States directly from the Defendants, including their predecessors and subsidiaries during the Class Period. Containerboard products include linerboard, corrugated medium and corrugated products such as sheets, boxes and corrugated containers.

Defendants

• Packaging Corporation of America
• International Paper
• Cascades Canada Inc.
• Norampac Holdings US Inc.
• Weyerhaeuser Company
• Georgia Pacific LLC
• Temple Inland Inc.
• RockTe​nn CP, LLC, formerly known as Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Domestic Drywall Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

2:13-md-02437 US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Overview

The case is known as In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437 and
13-MD-2437. Starting in December 2012, indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard filed lawsuits claiming that the Defendants conspired, in violation of the federal antitrust laws, to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the price of gypsum wallboard and, to help effectuate this price-fixing conspiracy, abolish the industry’s long-standing practice of limiting price increases for the duration of a construction project through the use of “job quotes.”

Class

In connection with the TIN and USG settlements, the Court certified identical Settlement Classes composed of all persons or entities that indirectly purchased wallboard for end use and not for resale in the United States that was manufactured or distributed by any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries from January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2014. The settlement recovers money for the benefit of class members located in or making a purchase in or from an entity located in Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (“Indirect Purchaser State Damages Class”).

Defendants

• TIN
• USG
• CertainTeed Gypsum
• New NGC
• Lafarge North America
• Eagle Materials, Inc.
• American Gypsum Company LLC
• PABCO Building Products

Filing Deadline: January 9, 2019

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

DRAM Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

4:02-md-01486 US District Court Northern District of California

Overview

Plaintiffs claim violations of federal antitrust laws regarding the sale of DRAM. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant DRAM manufacturers conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of DRAM sold in the United States. According to class action lawsuits, Plaintiffs believe these Defendants’ activities resulted in overcharges to customers who purchased DRAM indirectly from the named Defendant manufacturers.

The following is a summary for informational purposes only, based on SRG’s review of publically available information regarding the settlement. More information can be found on the Court’s docket and on www.dramclaims.com, which is the official settlement website maintained by the claims administrator appointed by the Court.

What is DRAM?

“DRAM” is defined as dynamic random access memory devices and components, including but not limited to, synchronous dynamic random access memory (“SDRAM”), Rambus dynamic random access memory (“RDRAM”), asynchronous dynamic random access memory (“ASYNC”) and double data rate dynamic random access memory (“DDR”), including modules containing DRAM, RDRAM, ASYNC, and/or DDR.

“DRAM” does not include static random access memory (“SRAM”) devices and components.​

These Products Contain DRAM:

• Desktop computers
• Laptop computers
• Servers
• Point of Sales Systems
• Graphics cards
• Video game consoles
• MP3 players
• Printers
• Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)
• DVD players
• TiVo/DVRs​

Indirect Purchaser Class

Any person, business or non-governmental entity who, at any time between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2002 purchased DRAM, or DRAM containing devices, anywhere in the United St​ates indirectly from the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates. “Indirectly” means a purchase from any entity other than directly from the listed Defendant manufacturers themselves. Indirect purchases include purchases of DRAM or DRAM containing devices from manufacturers, retailers and resellers.

Defendants

• Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. (“Elpida”)
• Hitachi, Ltd. (“Hitachi”)
• Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (“Hynix”)
• Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (“Infineon”)
• Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (“Micron”)
• Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”)
• Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc. (“Mosel”)
• Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc. (“Nanya”)​
• NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC”)
• Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“Samsung”)​
• Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (“Toshiba”)
• Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation America, Inc. (“Winbond”)​

Proposed Settlements: $310,720,000

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Lithium Ion Battery Products Direct Purchaser Settlement

4:13-md-02420 US District Court, Northern California Oakland Division

Overview​

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (see below) conspired to fix, raise and maintain prices of Lithium Ion Battery Products sold in the United States. Lithium Ion Batteries are cylindrical, prismatic, or polymer batteries that are rechargeable and use lithium ion technology. Lithium ion batteries are found in laptop, notebook and tablet computers, cellular phones, smart phones, digital audio players, digital cameras and camcorders, mobile wireless handsets, power tools and other consumer electronics.​

Class

All persons and entities who, between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011, purchased Lithium Ion Batteries or products containing Lithium Ion Batteries directly from one or more Defendants, their divisions, subsidiaries or affiliates. Eligible class members include those who purchased lithium ion batteries, products containing lithium ion batteries, and the replacement batteries for these products.

Defendants

• LG Chem, Ltd.
• LG Chem America, Inc.
• Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.
• Samsung SDI America, Inc.
• Panasonic Corporation
• Panasonic Corporation of North America
• Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
• Sanyo GS Soft Energy Co., Ltd.
• Sanyo North America Corporation
• GS Yuasa Corporation
• Sony Corporation
• Sony Energy Devices Corporation
• Sony Electronics, Inc.
• Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
• Maxell Corporation of America
• NEC Corporation
• NEC Tokin Corporation​
• Toshiba Corporation
• Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Lithium Ion Battery Products Indirect Purchaser Settlement

4:13-md-02420 US District Court, Northern California Oakland Division

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (see below) conspired to fix, raise and maintain prices of Lithium Ion Battery Products sold in the United States. Lithium Ion Batteries are cylindrical, prismatic, or polymer batteries that are rechargeable and use lithium ion technology. Lithium ion batteries are found in laptop, notebook and tablet computers, cellular phones, smart phones, digital audio players, digital cameras and camcorders, mobile wireless handsets, power tools and other consumer electronics.

Class

All persons who, between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011, purchased Lithium Ion Batteries or products containing Lithium Ion Batteries manufactured by a Defendant, in the United States for their own use and not for resale from an entity (such as a distributor, retailer or reseller) other than a Defendant or alleged co-conspirator. Excluded from this Class are the MDL Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries and affiliates.

Defendants

• LG Chem, Ltd.
• LG Chem America, Inc.
• Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.
• Samsung SDI America, Inc.
• Panasonic Corporation
• Panasonic Corporation of North America
• Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
• Sanyo GS Soft Energy Co., Ltd.
• Sanyo North America Corporation
• GS Yuasa Corporation
• Sony Corporation
• Sony Energy Devices Corporation
• Sony Electronics, Inc.
• Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
• Maxell Corporation of America
• NEC Corporation
• NEC Tokin Corporation
• Toshiba Corporation
• Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.​

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Polyurethane Foam Products Direct Purchaser Settlement

1:10-md-02196 US District Court, Northern District of Ohio

Overview

Manufacturers of polyurethane foam were accused of colluding to fix prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane products in the US and Europe. Polyurethane foam is used for cushioning and insulation in residential and commercial furnishing, bedding, flooring, automotive interiors, carpet underlay and in many industrial, packaging and technical applications. In the US, the direct purchasers accuse the defendants of conspiring from January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2010 to fix the price of polyurethane foam. In April 2013 Vitafoam and Vitafoam Products Canada agreed to pay over $10 million to claimants.

Class

Persons and entities that directly purchased flexible polyurethane foam in the US from a defendant from January 1, 1999 through July 31, 2010. A settlement is anticipated for both direct and indirect purchasers.

Defendants

• A-Z Sponge & Foam Products Ltd.
• Carpenter Company
• Carpenter Holdings & ER Carpenter LP
• Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
• Flexible Foam Products Inc.
• Future Foam Inc.
• FXI-Foamex Innovations Inc.
• Leggett & Platt Inc.
• Mohawk Industries
• Otto Bock Polyurethane Technologies
• Plastomer Corporation
• Scottdel Inc.
• The Woodbridge Group
• Valle Foam Industries Inc.
• Vitafoam Inc.
• Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd.

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Polyurethane Foam Products Indirect Purchaser Settlement

1:10-md-02196 US District Court, Northern District of Ohio

Overview

Manufacturers of polyurethane foam were accused of colluding to fix prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane foam products. Polyurethane foam is used for cushioning and insulation in residential and commercial furnishing, bedding and flooring. In April 2013 Vitafoam and Vitafoam Products Canada agreed to pay over $10 million to claimants. A previous $148 million settlement for direct purchasers was approved and had a filing deadline of January 26, 2015.

Flexible Polyurethane Foam is described as:

Upholstered furniture, such as a sofa with foam cushions
Carpet underlay, such as carpet padding or carpet cushion
Bedding product, such as mattresses, mattress toppers, pillows

Class

Persons and entities that indirectly purchased flexible polyurethane foam in the US from a store or company other than from the defendants from January 1, 1999 through August 1, 2015. Indirectly means not for resale. The purchase(s) must have been made in any of the eligible states below.

The Eligible States

• Alabama
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Vermont
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• District of Columbia​​

Defendants

• A-Z Sponge & Foam Products Ltd.
• Carpenter Company
• Carpenter Holdings & ER Carpenter LP
• Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
• Flexible Foam Products Inc.
• Future Foam Inc.
• FXI-Foamex Innovations Inc.
• Leggett & Platt Inc.
• Mohawk Industries
• Otto Bock Polyurethane Technologies
• Plastomer Corporation
• Scottdel Inc.
• The Woodbridge Group
• Valle Foam Industries Inc.
• Vitafoam Inc.
• Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd.

Filing Deadline: January 9, 2019

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

Steel Antitrust Settlement

1:08-cv-05214 US District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Overview

Certain steel producers were accused of conspiring to restrict their output and therefore raise or fix the prices for Steel Products sold for delivery in the United States between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007. The Defendants allegedly violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to slow their furnace production and restrict their output of raw steel, causing artificially higher prices for Steel Products.

Steel Products are defined as products derived from raw carbon steel, including all carbon steel slabs, plates, sheet and coil products, galvanized and other coated sheet products; billets, blooms, rebar, merchant bar, beams and other structural shapes; and all other steel products derived from raw carbon steel, except for certain products that have been excluded.​

Steel Products specifically exclude the following product categories: stainless steel;
grain-oriented electrical steel; tin mill products; clad plate (i.e., nickel, stainless or copper clad plate); steel pipe and other tubular products; “special bar quality” products; wire rod and other wire products; grinding balls; fabricated rebar products; fabricated steel joist, decking, fence posts and other fabricated building products; welded steel blanks; and steel products purchased under toll processing agreements.

Class

All persons who purchased Steel Products directly from any of the Defendants, their subsidiaries or controlled affiliates at any time between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 for delivery in the United States.

Defendants

• ArcelorMittal S.A. and ArcelorMittal USA, LLC (together “ArcelorMittal”)
• Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”)
• United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”)
• Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (“Gerdau”)
• AK Steel Holding Corporation (“AK Steel”)​
• Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“Steel Dynamics”)
• SSAB Swedish Steel Corporation (“SSAB”)
• Commercial Metals Company (“CMC”)

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.
​​

Urethane Polyether Polyol Direct Purchaser Settlement

2:04-md-1616 US District Court, Kansas District

Overview

Plaintiffs claim that, from 1999 through 2004, the Defendant companies unlawfully agreed to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of Polyether Polyol Products sold in the United States. Plaintiffs claim that any person or entity that purchased Polyether Polyol Products directly from any Defendant company during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market.

Definition of Polyether Polyol Products

Polyether Polyol Products include: 1) propylene oxide-based polyether polyols; 2) monomeric or polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanates (MMDI or PMDI is collectively “MDI”); 3) toluene diisocyanates (“TDI”); 4) MDI-TDI blends; or 5) propylene oxide-based polyether polyol systems (except those that also contain polyester polyols).

Class

Individuals and entities who, between November 24, 2000 and December 31, 2003 (the “Class Period”), purchased Polyether Polyol Products in the United States or its territories directly from any of the Defendant companies, and not from a distributor or intermediary.

Defendants

• Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation and Bayer Material Science LLC
• BASF Corporation
• Dow Chemical Company
• Huntsman International LLC
• Lyondell Chemical Company

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

​​​​​Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims.​ We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.