Freight Forwarders Antitrust Settlements
1:08-cv00042 US District Court, Eastern District of New York
Overview
Direct purchasers of freight forwarding services in the United States claim that the major global freight forwarding companies conspired to fix various prices and surcharges for freight forwarding services in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws. As a result, purchasers paid more for freight forwarding services than they otherwise would have paid. The first round of the freight forwarder settlements totaled $105,611,864, and August 24, 2015 was the deadline to file claims. The second round of the Freight Forwarders Settlement totaled $197,623,497. The current round is $53,550,000.
Class
All persons (excluding governmental entities, Defendants, their respective parents, subsidiaries and affiliates) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services (a) for shipments within, to, or from the United States, or (b) purchased or sold in the United States regardless of the location of shipment; from any of the Defendants, subsidiary or affiliate, at any time from January 1, 2001 to January 4, 2011.
Defendants
- ABX Logistics Group
- Agility Logistics Corporation
- Air Express International USA, Inc.
- Baltrans Logistics, Inc.
- BAX Global Inc.
- Dachser Intelligent Logistics
- Dachser Transport of America, Inc.
- Danzas Corporation dba DHL Global Forwarding
- DB Schenker
- Deutsche Bahn AG
- Deutsche Post AG
- DHL Express (USA), Inc.
- DHL Global Forwarding Japan K.K.
- DHL Japan, Inc.
- DSV A/S
- DSV Air & Sea Ltd.
- DSV Solutions Holding A/S
- EGL Eagle Global Logistics LP
- EGL Inc.
- Exel Global Logistics, Inc.
- K Line Logistics (USA) Inc.
- K Line Logistics Ltd.
- Kintetsu World Express (USA) Inc.
- Kintetsu World Express Inc.
- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.
- Kuhne + Nagel International AG
- MOL Logistics Co. (Japan) Ltd.
- MOL Logistics (USA) Inc.
- Morrison Express Corporation (USA)
- Morrison Express Logistics PTE Ltd.
- Nippon Express Co. Ltd.
- Nippon Express USA, Inc.
- Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co. Ltd.
- Nissin Corporation
- Nissin International Transport USA Inc.
- Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd.
- Panalpina, Inc.
- Schenker AG
- Schenker Inc.
- SDV Logistique Internationale
Current Settlements: $53,550,000
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.
Gold Futures and Options Trading Antitrust Settlement
1:14-md-02548 US District Court, Southern District of New York
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants colluded to manipulate “London Gold Market Fix,” a global benchmark reference rate used in the price often agreed to be used in advance by buyers and sellers of gold. Throughout the Class Period (as defined below), The Bank of Nova Scotia,
Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, and Société Générale (the “Fixing Bank Defendants”) met
privately twice each London business day for what is aptly known as the London Gold Market
Fixing (hereafter the “London Gold Fixing” or “Fixing”). The Fixing produces a benchmark
rate for gold, a price often agreed to be used in advance by buyers and sellers of gold. Plaintiffs assert that defendants colluded to manipulate the London Gold Market Fix rate to ensure the rate moved in the direction that they wished to ensure maximum profitability, rather than a fair auction as intended.
Class
All persons or entities who during the period from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2013, either (A) sold any physical gold or financial or derivative instrument in which gold is the underlying reference asset, including, but not limited to, those who sold (i) gold bullion, gold bullion coins, gold bars, gold ingots or any form of physical gold, (ii) gold futures contracts in transactions conducted in whole or in part on COMEX or any other exchange operated in the United States, (iii) shares in gold exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), (iv) gold call options in transactions Case 1:14-md-02548-VEC Document 187 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 84conducted over-the-counter or in whole or in part on COMEX or any other exchange operated in the United States; (v) gold spot, gold forwards or gold swaps over-the-counter; or (B) bought gold put options in transactions conducted over-the- counter or in whole or in part on COMEX or on any other exchange operated in the United States.
Defendants (the “Fixing Bank Defendants”)
- Bank of Nova Scotia
- Barclays
- Deutsche Bank
- HSBC
- Société Générale
Settling Defendants
- Deutsche Bank
Partial Settlements: $60,000,000
Filing Deadline: Not yet established
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.
Hypodermic Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement
2:05-md-1730 US District Court, District of New Jersey
Overview
Plaintiffs in the Class Action allege that Becton Dickinson and Company (“BD”) violated federal antitrust laws with respect to the sale of BD Hypodermic Products. The Lawsuit claims that BD engaged in several forms of anticompetitive practices, including: (1) imposing market share purchase requirements on hospitals or other healthcare entities, (2) bundling its goods for exclusionary purposes, (3) conspiring with Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) for the purpose of imposing exclusionary contracts, and (4) conspiring with other manufacturers to impose rebate penalties on purchasers relating to a bundle of products. The Lawsuit claims that by engaging in this conduct, Defendant was able to improperly maintain a monopoly in the markets in which BD Hypodermic Products are sold, causing direct purchasers of BD Hypodermic Products to pay artificially inflated prices for BD Hypodermic Products.
Class
All persons and entities (and assignees of claims from such persons and entities) who (1) purchased BD Hypodermic Products in the United States from BD at any time during the period of March 23, 2001 through April 27, 2009 (the “Class Period”) and (2) were invoiced by BD for said purchases. The Direct Purchaser Class excludes BD, BD’s parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, and United States Government Entities and those persons or entities who are permitted by the Court to opt out of the Direct Purchaser Class.
“BD Hypodermic Products” are products sold by BD in the following device categories:
- safety and conventional hypodermic needles and syringes;
- safety and conventional blood collection devices, including needles, blood collection tubes, and tube holders;
- safety and conventional IV catheters, including winged IV catheters; and
- safety and conventional insulin delivery devices.
Defendant
Becton Dickinson and Company
Settlement
The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement between BD and the Direct Purchaser Class. The Settlement will provide for payment of $45 million for allocation to the members of the Direct Purchaser Class.
Filing Deadline: Contact SRG
ISDA Derivatives Antitrust Settlement
1:14-cv-07126 US District Court, Southern District of New York
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants colluded to manipulate “ISDAfix,” a global benchmark reference rate used in the interest rate derivatives market. Defendants are 14 banks that dominate the market for interest rate derivatives, as well as ICAP, an interdealer broker that served as the administrator of the ISDAfix-setting process during the Class Period. ISDAfix rates are published daily and were designed to represent the current market rate for the fixed leg of a standard fixed-for-floating interest rate swap. ISDAfix rates are published for various currencies and maturities.
An ISDAfix Instrument Is:
Any and all interest rate derivatives, including but not limited to swaps, swap spreads, swap futures, and swaptions, denominated in USD or related to USD interest rates, and (ii) any financial instrument, product, or transaction related in any way to any ISDAfix Benchmark Rates, including but not limited to instruments, products, or transactions that reference ISDAfix Benchmark Rates and instruments, products, or transactions that are relevant to determining or calculating ISDAfix Benchmark Rates.
ISDAfix Benchmark Rates Are:
Any and all tenors of USD ISDAfix, including USD ISDAfix rates and USD ISDAfix spreads, and “reference rates” distributed as part of the USD ISDAfix submission process.
Class
All persons and entities who, from January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2014, (the “Class Period”), entered into, received or made payments on, terminated, transacted in, or held an ISDAfix Instrument during the Settlement Class Period. Excluded from this Class are the Defendants and their employees, affiliates, parents and subsidiaries.
Defendants
- Bank of America Corporation
- Barclays Bank
- BNP Paribas
- Citigroup
- Credit Suisse, New York Branch
- Deutsche Bank AG
- Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
- HSBC Bank PLC
- ICAP Capital Markets LLC
- JPMorgan Chase & Company
- Morgan Stanley & Company, LLC
- Nomura Securities International, Inc.
- Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
- UBS AG
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Settling Defendants |
|
|---|---|
| Bank of America | $50,000,000 |
| Barclays | $30,000,000 |
| Citigroup | $42,000,000 |
| Credit Suisse | $50,000,000 |
| Deutsche Bank | $50,000,000 |
| JPMorgan Chase | $52,000,000 |
| Royal Bank of Scotland | $50,000,000 |
| Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. | $56,500,000 |
| HSBC Bank USA, N.A. | $14,000,000 |
| UBS AG | $14,000,000 |
Partial Settlements |
$408,500,000 |
|---|
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.
LCD Flat Panel Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement
3:07-md-01827 US District Court Northern District of California
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that, from at least January 1, 1996 through December 11, 2006, defendants operated a cartel, the purpose of which was to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs) and products incorporating TFT-LCDs. TFT LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. The plaintiffs, who directly purchased from a defendant the TFT-LCDs or the products containing them, allege the defendants fixed the prices of the TFT-LCDs, causing the plaintiffs to pay more than they should have.
Class
All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006, directly purchased a TFT-LCD panel from any defendant or any subsidiary thereof, or any named affiliate or any named co-conspirator. Specifically excluded from the Class are defendants; the officers, directors, or employees of any defendant; the parent companies and subsidiaries of any defendant; the legal representatives and heirs or assigns of any defendant; and the named affiliates and co-conspirators. Also excluded are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006, directly purchased a television, computer monitor, or notebook computer containing a TFT-LCD panel from any defendant or any subsidiary thereof, or any named affiliate or any named co-conspirator. Specifically excluded from the Class are defendants; the officers, directors, or employees of any defendant; the parent companies and subsidiaries of any defendant; the legal representatives and heirs or assigns of any defendant; and the named affiliates and co-conspirators. Also excluded are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
Defendants
- Acer
- AU Optronics
- Chi Mei Corporation
- Chunghwa
- Epson
- Fujitsu
- Hannspree
- HannStar
- Hitachi
- Hydis Technologies
- IBM
- IPS Alpha Technology
- LG Electronics
- Mitsubishi Electric
- Mitsui
- NEC
- Panasonic
- Philips
- Samsung
- Sanyo
- Seiko Epson
- SharpToshiba
Proposed Settlements |
$473,000,000 |
|---|---|
| Sharp | $105,000,000 |
| Samsung | $82,700,000 |
| Chi Mei | $78,000,000 |
| LG Display | $75,000,000 |
| Hitachi | $28,000,000 |
| HannStar | $14,900,000 |
| Chunghwa | $10,000,000 |
| Epson | $7,000,000 |
| Sanyo | $3,500,000 |
| Mitsui | $950,000 |
| AU Optronics | $38,000,000 |
| Toshiba | $30,000,000 |
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.
LCD Flat Panel Products Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Settlement
3:07-md-01827 US District Court Northern District of California
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that, from at least January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, defendants operated a cartel, the purpose of which was to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs) and products incorporating TFT-LCDs. TFT LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. The plaintiffs, who directly purchased from a defendant the TFT-LCDs or the products containing them, allege the defendants fixed the prices of the TFT-LCDs, causing the plaintiffs to pay more than they should have.
Class
All persons and entities in Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin who, from January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006, as residents of their respective states, purchased LCD panels incorporated in televisions, monitors, and/or laptop computers in their respective states indirectly from one or more of the named Defendants or Quanta Display Inc., for their own use and not for resale. Specifically excluded from the Class are defendants; the officers, directors, or employees of any defendant; the parent companies and subsidiaries of any defendant; the legal representatives and heirs or assigns of any defendant; and the named affiliates and co-conspirators. Also excluded are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
Defendants
- Acer
- AU Optronics
- Chi Mei Corporation
- Chunghwa
- Epson
- Fujitsu
- Hannspree
- HannStar
- Hitachi
- Hydis Technologies
- IBM
- IPS Alpha Technology
- LG Electronics
- Mitsubishi Electric
- Mitsui
- NEC
- Panasonic
- Philips
- Samsung
- Sanyo
- Seiko Epson
- Sharp
- Toshiba
Proposed Settlements |
$1,100,000,000 |
|---|---|
| Chimei | $110,273,318 |
| Chunghwa | $5,305,105 |
| Epson | $2,850,000 |
| HannStar | $25,650,000 |
| Hitachi | $38,977,224 |
| Samsung | $240,000,000 |
| Sharp | $115,500,000 |
| LG | $361,000,000 |
| AUO | $161,500,000 |
| Toshiba | $21,000,000 |
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.
LCD Illinois Flat Panel Indirect Purchaser Settlement
No. 10 CH 34472 Circuit Court, Cook County Illinois
Overview
The Illinois Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any Illinois resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006, while residing in Illinois and for their own use and not for resale.
Class
Any person or business that purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006 while residing in Illinois, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolution color displays.
Defendants
- Chungwa
- Epson
- LG
- Hitachi
- Chi Mei
- Sharp
Settlement Fund |
$104,646,436 |
|---|---|
| Chunghwa Settlement | $696,436 |
| Epson Settlement | $4,750,000 |
| LG Settlement | $37,800,000 |
| Hitachi Settlement | $10,400,000 |
| Chi Mei Settlement | $39,000,000 |
| Sharp Settlement | $12,000,000 |
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.
LCD Washington State Flat Panel Indirect Purchaser Settlement
No. 10-2-29164-4 SEA King County Superior Court, State of Washington
Overview
On behalf of Washington governmental entities and as parens patriae on behalf of Washington consumers, the Washington State Attorney General brought an antitrust lawsuit involving the price of thin film transistor liquid crystal display flat panels (“LCD Flat Panels”). The complaint alleged that the Defendants participated in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of LCD Flat Panels, resulting in damages to consumers who bought finished products containing an LCD Flat Panel. The case is called State of Washington v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., No. 10-2-29164-4 SEA.
Class Description
The Washington State Attorney General reached a settlement on behalf of Washington consumers. You are eligible to participate in the settlement if you or your business purchased an LCD Flat Panel product between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006; and resided or had headquarters in Washington at the time of purchase; and purchased the LCD Flat Panel product from a retailer, distributor, third party vendor or someone other than the manufacturer of the component screen; and purchased the LCD Flat Panel product for your own use and not for resale.
Defendants |
|
|---|---|
| Chimei will pay | $8,750,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| Chunghwa will pay | $428,235 into the Settlement Fund |
| Epson will pay | $2,700,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| Hitachi will pay | $5,200,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| LG will pay | $13,000,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| Samsung will pay | $12,940,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| Sharp will pay | $6,750,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| Toshiba will pay | $950,000 into the Settlement Fund |
| AU Optronics will pay | $12,500,000 into the Settlement Fund |
Total Settlements |
$63,218,235 |
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.
LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Settlement
1:11-md-02262 US District Court, Southern District of New York
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that prominent financial institutions manipulated the London InterBank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, which is the primary benchmark for determining short term interest rates for financial instruments worldwide. The Defendant banks, members of the U.S. Dollar LIBOR panel during the Class Period (August 2007 through May 2010), were motivated to suppress LIBOR for two reasons. First, since the interest rate a bank pays on its debt is perceived as a sign of the bank’s risk, the Defendants understated their borrowing costs (suppressing LIBOR) to appear more financially secure. Second, artificially suppressing LIBOR allowed Defendants to pay lower interest rates on LIBOR-based financial instruments that Defendants sold to investors, including the Baltimore Plaintiffs, during the Class Period.
Class
For OTC Claimants: All persons or entities, other than Defendants and their employees, affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries, that purchased in the United States, directly from a Defendant, a U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Instrument and that owned the U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Instrument any time during the period August 2007 through May 2010.
Defendants
- Credit Suisse Group AG
- Credit Suisse International
- Credit Suisse (USA) Inc.
- Bank of America Corporation
- Bank of America, N.A.
- JPMorgan Chase & Co.
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
- HSBC Holdings PLC
- HSBC Bank PLC
- Barclays Bank plc
- Lloyds Banking Group PLC
- WestLB AG
- Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG
- UBS AG
- The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
- Citizens Bank of Massachusetts a/k/a RBS Citizens Bank N.A.Deutsche Bank AG
- Citibank NA; Citigroup Inc.
- Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A.
- The Norinchukin Bank
- The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd
- HBOS PLC
- Société Générale S.A.
- Royal Bank of Canada
- And any other Person or Persons who are named as defendants in the OTC Action
Partial Settlements |
$130,000,000 |
|---|---|
| Citigroup | $130,000,000 |
| Barclays Bank Earlier Settlement | $120,000,000 |
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.
