Which cases apply to your company?

Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Direct Purchaser Settlement

1:07-mc-00489 US District Court District of Columbia

Overview​

Plaintiffs claim that, from 2003 through 2008, the Defendant companies unlawfully assessed a rail freight surcharge applied as a percentage of the base rate for freight transport services purchased in the United States. The fuel surcharge was either stand-alone, or included in the base rate of the freight service. Plaintiffs claim that any person or entity that purchased Rail Freight 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 January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008 (the “Class Period”), purchased rate-unregulated Rail Freight Transport Services in the United States directly from any of the Defendant companies.​

Defendants​

• BNSF Railway Company​
• CSX Transportation Inc.
• Norfolk Southern Railway Company
• Union Pacific Railroad Company​

Settlements: Not Yet Established

​​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.

Southeast Dairy Settlement

2:08-md-01000 US District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee

Overview

The lawsuit claims that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators unlawfully agreed and conspired to monopolize, to fix prices at suppressed levels, and to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale, and purchase of raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk Market Orders 5 and 7 (“Southeast”). This includes Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and parts of Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. ​

The lawsuit claims that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators unlawfully agreed and conspired to monopolize, to fix prices at suppressed levels, and to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale, and purchase of raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk Market Orders 5 and 7 (“Southeast”). This includes Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and parts of Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. ​

Class

You are a member of the Class if your farm produced Grade A milk within Orders 5 or 7 and sold that milk directly or through an agent to Defendants or alleged Co-Conspirators in Orders 5 and/or 7 any time from January 1, 2001 to the present.

Current Defendants

​Current Co-Conspirators

Partial Settlements: $145,000,000

Dean Foods has agreed to pay a total of $140 Million over four or five years into a fund that would be distributed to dairy farmers involved in the class action lawsuit.  Southern Marketing Agency and James Baird have agreed to pay an additional $5 million into a settlement fund.

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.

SRAM Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement

4:07-md-01819 US District Court, Northern District of California

Overview

This is a class action lawsuit that alleges violations of federal antitrust laws in connection with the sale of SRAM. Plaintiff claims that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM. Plaintiff alleges that this conspiracy resulted in customers who purchased SRAM being overcharged. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of itself, and on behalf of the class of customers who purchased SRAM in the United States directly from one or more of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates. Defendants have denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct.

What is SRAM?

SRAMs are memory chips used in a variety of applications, including consumer electronics products, such as cell phones, and computing products, such as workstations. For purposes of this lawsuit, SRAM includes high-speed or fast SRAM, low-power or slow SRAM, synchronous SRAM, asynchronous SRAM, and pseudoSRAM (“PSRAM”). Custom SRAM is not included in the class.

Class

The class includes all persons and entities who, during the period November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2005, purchased non-custom SRAM in the United States directly from Defendants or any subsidiaries or affiliates thereof. Excluded from the class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any co-conspirators, and all government entities.

Defendants

• Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
• Etron Technology, Inc.
• Etron Technology America, Inc.
• Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
• Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.
• Micron Technology, Inc.
• Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
• Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
• Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
• NEC Electronics Corporation
• NEC Electronics America, Inc.
• Renesas Technology Corp.
• Renesas Technology America, Inc.
• Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.
• Samsung Electronics America Inc.
• Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
• 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.

SRAM Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Settlement

United States District Court, Northern District of California Oakland Division Case No. 4:07-md-1819 CW MDL No. 1819

Overview

Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM in violation of antitrust, unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws, resulting in overcharges to customers who indirectly purchased SRAM. Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The District Court did not decide who is right. Samsung and Cypress (the “Settling Defendants”), have agreed to settle with Plaintiffs; they continue to deny liability, but settled to avoid litigation expense and risk.

What is SRAM?

SRAM means all types of Static Random Access Memory parts and modules as well as pseudostatic random access memory (“PSRAM”). SRAM is used in a variety of product markets, including: (1) the communications market in cell phones and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) technology; (2) the computer market in servers, mainframes, high-end computer workstations, and personal digital assistants (PDAs) and smart phones; and (3) the networking communications market in routers, switches, proxy and gateway devices, modems, storage area networks and firewalls.

Class

You are a member of the Settlement Class if you indirectly purchased SRAM in the United States from one or more of the Defendants during the period from November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006 (the “Class Period”). The Settlement Class includes indirect purchasers of SRAM that purchased and resold Defendants’ SRAM (“Resellers”), as well as indirect purchasers of Defendants’ SRAM that purchased it for their own use and not for resale (“End Users”).

Defendants

• Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
• Etron Technology, Inc.
• Etron Technology America, Inc.
• Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
• Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.
• Micron Technology, Inc.
• Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
• Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
• Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
• NEC Electronics Corporation
• NEC Electronics America, Inc.
• Renesas Technology Corp.
• Renesas Technology America, Inc.
• Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.
• Samsung Electronics America Inc.
• Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
• Toshiba Corporation
• Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

Settlements: $41,322,000.00

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.

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.
​​

Stericycle & Steri-Safe Settlement

1:13-md-2455 US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District

Overview

Plaintiffs allege that Stericycle, a large provider of medical waste disposal services, did not honor the fixed prices it promised to charge its customers. Instead, Stericycle systematically and regularly raised its prices, without any justification and without notifying its customers. Plaintiffs allege Stericycle misled customers about its pricing and practices, and induced them to become or remain customers by falsely representing that its rates were fixed. Stericycle failed to disclose its practice of increasing prices, failed to notify customers that prices had changed, and then were not truthful about the reasons for price increases when clients challenged them.

Class

All persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through October 26, 2017, resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as a “Small Quantity” or “SQ” customer, and were charged and paid more than their Contractually Agreed Price for Stericycle’s medical waste disposal goods and services. Excluded from the class are governmental entities whose claims were asserted and resolved in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. and any entities that have previously settled similar claims with Stericycle and released those claims.

​Settling Defendant: Stericycle, Inc.

Settlements: $295,000,000

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG​

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.

US Foodservice Direct Purchaser Settlement

3:07-md-01894 US District Court Connecticut

​Overview

Plaintiffs allege that defendants illegally conspired to inflate prices charged for their food products through a network of Value Added Service Providers, or VASPs. These companies bought food and sold it to US Foodservice Inc., who in turn sold it to their end customers under a “cost-plus” billing arrangement. A cost plus b​​illing arrangement is where end customers agree to pay the suppliers cost, plus a fixed additional percentage. Plaintiffs state that the VASPs were actually wholly controlled by US Foodservice Inc., for the sole purpose of falsely inflating costs for selected food items. These inflated costs were invoiced to US Foodservice Inc., who in turn charged them to end customers in addition to any additional previously agreed upon additional percentage.

Class

Any person or entity that purchased products from United Food Service under a “cost plus”
(a cost component plus and agreed upon markup) and for which United Food Service used a Value Added Service Provider (VASP) to calculate the cost component any time from
1998-2005. The alleged VASP’s that are a part of this settlement are:

• Seafood Marketing Specialists Inc.
• Frozen Farms Inc.
• Produce Solutions Inc. aka Cross Valley Produce Inc.
• Private Labels Distribution Inc., aka Private Brands Distribution Inc.
• Specialty Supply & Marketing Inc.
• Commodity Management Systems Inc.

Settlement: $297,000,000​

​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.