Which cases apply to your company?

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.

London Silver Fixing Antitrust Settlement

1:14-md-02573 US District Court, Southern District of New York

Overview

Until very recently, the price of silver was set by a combination of three of the world’s largest multinational banks—the members of The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd. The three banks are Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche”), HSBC U.S.A. Bank, N.A. (“HSBC”), and The Bank of Nova Scotia-ScotiaMocatta (“Scotiabank”) (collectively the “Fixing Members”). The name of the process was the “Silver Fix.” The Silver Fix determined the benchmark price of silver worldwide from 1897 until August 14, 2014. The Fixing Members literally fixed the price of silver once per day, every business day, through a secure conference call, at noon, London time. There were no outside observers or regulatory body, and Plaintiffs are aware of no recordings or transcripts ever released. Plaintiffs assert that through this clandestine device, Defendants dictated the price of physical silver and thereby the prices of silver financial instruments such as silver futures and options, the prices of which are directly and proximately caused by, and directly linked to, the price of physical silver, both physical and futures — around the noon Silver Fix, that created a distinct tradable advantage of up to 40 basis points per day for the Fixing Members and other insiders. This advantage persisted “in bull markets, bear markets, and everything in between” defying price trends in the broader market throughout the Class Period.

​
Class

All persons or entities that transacted in U.S.-Related Transactions in or on any over the-counter market (“OTC”) or exchange in physical silver or in a derivative instrument in which silver is the underlying reference asset (collectively, “Silver Instruments”), at any time from January 1, 1999 through September 6th of 2016. “U.S.-Related Transaction” means any transaction in a Silver Instrument (a) by any person or entity domiciled in the U.S. or its territories, or (b) by any person or entity domiciled outside the U.S. or its territories but conducted, in whole or in part, in the U.S. or its territories.

Defendants

• Deutsche Bank AG
• Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corporation
• DB U.S. Financial Markets Holding Corporation
• Deutsche Bank
• Securities, Inc.
• Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation
• Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas​
• Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch
• Bank of Nova Scotia
• HSBC Holdings PLC
• HSBC Bank PLC
• HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A.
• London Silver Market Fixing LTD
• Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.
• Scotia Holdings (USA) Inc.
• Scotia Bank Inc.

Filing Deadline: To Be Determined

​​​​​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.

Northeastern Dairy Settlement

5:09-cv-00230 US District Court, District of Vermont

Overview

The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against Defendants, Dean Foods Co. (“Dean”), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (“DFA”), Dairy Marketing Services, LLC (“DMS”). The lawsuit claims that Defendants violated federal antitrust law by engaging in anticompetitive conduct in the purchase and sale of raw Grade A milk in Order 1 and that, as a result, the prices paid to dairy farmers in Order 1 for raw Grade A milk were lower than they would otherwise have been.

Class

The Dean Settlement Class includes all dairy farmers, whether individuals, entities, or members of cooperatives, who produced raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk Order 1 AND pooled raw Grade A milk on Federal Milk Order 1 during any time from January 1, 2002 to May 23, 2011. This includes Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.

Defendants

• Dean Foods Co.
• Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
• Dairy Marketing Services, LLC

Settlement

A $30 million Settlement with Dean has been reached. The Settlement provides a financial payment to certain dairy farmers in the N​ortheast who are members of the Dean Settlement Class. Dean denies that it did anything wrong. The other Defendants have also denied that they did anything wrong. The Court has not yet heard or resolved the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims, or determined whether the Plaintiffs’ or Defendants’ claims are true.

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.

ODD Products Direct Purchaser Settlement

3:10-md-02143 US District Court, Northern District of California

Overview

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants and co-conspirators unlawfully conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of ODDs. Plaintiffs claim that direct purchasers from the Defendants of computers, video game consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders, and Blu-Ray players/recorders that contain ODDs may recover for the effect that the ODD conspiracy had on the prices of ODD Devices. Plaintiffs claim that the conspiracy required direct purchasers to pay more for ODDs and ODD Devices.

What are ODDs?

“Optical Disk Drives” or “ODDs” are any device which reads and/or writes data from and to an optical disk including, but not limited to, CD-ROMS, CD-recordable/rewritable, DVD-ROM,
DVD-recordable/rewritable, Blu-Ray Blu-Ray recordable/rewritable, HD-DVD, Super
Multi-Drives and other combination drives, and optical disk drives designed to be attached extemally to computers or other devices. “Optical Disk Drive Devices” or “ODD Devices” are devices incorporating ODDs including but not limited to desktop computers, mobile/laptop computers, videogame consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders, and Blu-Ray disc players/recorders.

Class

Individuals and entities who, during the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2011 (the “Class Period”), purchased Optical Disk Drives and Optical Disk Drive Devices in the United States directly from the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or their affiliates. Excluded from the Class are defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and government entities.

Defendants

• Sony Corporation
• Sony Optiarc Inc.
• NEC Corporation
• Sony NEC Optiarc Inc.
• Sony Optiarc America Inc.
• Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.
• Sony Electronics, Inc.
• LG Electronics Inc.
• LG Electronics USA, Inc.
• Hitachi, Ltd.
• Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc.
• Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.
• Toshiba Corporation
• Toshiba America lnformation Systems, Inc.
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
• Samsung Electronics America, lnc.
• Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Cotp.
• Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. Korea
• Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
• Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp.
• Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc.
• BenQ Corporation
• BenQ America Corporation
• TEAC Corporation
• TEAC America, lnc.
• Quanta Storage, Inc.
• Quanta Storage America, Inc.
• Panasonic Corporation
• Panasonic Corporation of North America

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.

Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Settlement

SUBMIT MY CLAIM

1:05-md-01720 US District Court, Eastern District of New York

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that, between January 1, 2004 and the January 25, 2019, Defendants Visa, MasterCard and several banks including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup conspired to artificially inflate the prices of interchange fees that merchants’ acquiring banks pay to customers’ issuing banks in a credit or debit card transaction. Since the interchange fees are inflated, the discount fees merchants pay to accept card payments are in turn artificially high, and various rules prevent merchants from challenging the inflated fees.

What is Interchange?

Interchange is a fee paid by a merchant’s bank (also known as the acquiring bank) to the cardholder’s bank (the issuing bank) to compensate the issuing bank for a portion of the risks and costs it incurs.

Class

The eligible class consists of all persons, businesses and other entities that accepted Visa and/or MasterCard credit or debit cards in the United States from January 1, 2004 to January 25, 2019.

File a claim for me

SUBMIT MY CLAIM

Claimant information:

SRG is not affiliated with the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party service that can be hired to file and track claims. We specialize in helping companies file claims to obtain their 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. Please note the following:

• Claim forms are being delivered and are available online beginning December 1, 2023.
• Class members need not sign up for a third-party service in order to participate in any monetary relief.
• No-cost assistance is available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claims-filing period.
• More information is available at the Court-approved website www.paymentcardsettlement.com.
• 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.

Processed Egg Products Antitrust Settlement

2:08-md-02002 US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

​Overview

Certain producers of Shell Eggs and Egg Products have been accused of conspiring to limit, fix or maintain the price of eggs, which caused direct purchasers to pay more for eggs and egg products. The term “eggs” refers to both Shell Eggs and Egg Products, which are eggs removed from their shells for further processing into a dried, frozen, or liquid form.

Class

Any person or entity in the United States that purchased eggs, including shell eggs and egg products, produced from caged birds in the United States directly from any producer during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through December 19th, 2014.

Shell Egg Subclass

Individuals and entities in the United States that purchased shell eggs produced from caged birds in the United States directly from any producer during the Class Period from MFI Settlement Class Shell Eggs Defendants 09/24/2004 – 12/31/2008.

Egg Products Subclass

Individuals and entities in the United States that purchased egg products produced from shell eggs that came from caged birds in the United States directly from any producer during the Class Period 01/01/2000 – 12/19/2014.

Excluded from the subclasses are those that purchased only:

• “Specialty” Shell Eggs: certified organic, nutritionally enhanced, cage-free, free-range, and vegetarian-fed
• “Hatching” Shell Eggs: used by poultry breeders to produce stock for laying hens or meat

Defendants

• Cal-Maine
• ​Daybreak Foods, Inc.
• ​Foods, Inc.
• Hillandale
• ​Land O’Lakes, Inc.
• ​MFI
• Midwest
• Moark, LLC​
• ​NFC
• Norco Ranch, Inc.​
• Nucal
• Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC​
• Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
• ​R.W. Sauder, Inc.
• Sparboe Farms Inc​
• ​UEP/USEM

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.