Eighth Circuit Dismisses Federal Antitrust Claims In Propane Action, Finding Plaintiffs Failed To Allege Injury Or Ongoing Conspiracy By Defendants
On June 22, 2018, a three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part a district court decision granting summary judgment for defendants and dismissing antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of Columbia, against two propane gas companies. Mario Ortiz et al. v. Ferrellgas Partners et al., No. 16-4086 (8th Cir. June 22, 2018).
U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of California Rejects Class Certification Of Indirect Purchasers In Lithium Ion Battery Price-Fixing Litigation Based On Plaintiffs’ Failure To Address Focal Point Pricing
On March 5, 2018, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied class certification for a group of indirect purchasers alleging price fixing in the sale of lithium batteries, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they had a reliable method of proving pass-through of the alleged overcharges on a class-wide basis. In so holding, the Court relied primarily on the plaintiffs’ expert’s failure to account for the effects of “focal point pricing,” the practice of pricing consumer products at certain attractive retail price points, for example, $799 or $1299.
Southern District Of New York Denies Certification To Two Putative Classes And Grants Partial Certification To A Third In LIBOR Rate Manipulation Litigation
On February 28, 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York denied class certification to two proposed classes in the LIBOR rate manipulation litigation, while granting partial certification to a third class. In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., No 1:11-cv-02613-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018). At issue in this thorough 366-page decision were three proposed classes: (1) the “exchange-based” class, (2) the “lender” class, and (3) the “over-the-counter” or “OTC” class, all seeking to recover damages based on alleged manipulation of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”).
Second Circuit Revives Schwab’s Claims Flowing From Alleged LIBOR Manipulation
On February 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated portions of Judge Buchwald’s 2015 opinion that had dismissed claims brought by Charles Schwab Corp. and affiliates against over a dozen banks alleged to have manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR for lack of personal jurisdiction for state-law claims and a failure to link the alleged manipulation to damages for Securities Exchange Act claims. Charles Schwab Corp., et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., 16-1189-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 2018). Schwab had been among the many plaintiffs to pursue claims against LIBOR panel banks under the antitrust laws, but—while the dismissal of those claims was pending appeal before the Second Circuit—Schwab initiated a parallel action against LIBOR panel banks, alleging California common law fraud and unjust enrichment claims, statutory claims under California’s Business and Professions Code, and claims under the Securities Exchange Act. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, holding that (i) personal jurisdiction was lacking for the state law claims because the alleged manipulation took place outside of the U.S.; and (ii) the complaint failed to allege facts in support of a Securities Exchange Act claim because it failed to connect the suppression of LIBOR to any damages suffered by Schwab. In re LIBOR-based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 6243526, *70 (Oct. 20, 2015 S.D.N.Y.). The Second Circuit vacated these rulings, directing the district court to grant Schwab leave to amend its complaint to address a number of issues identified in the opinion.
District Of Massachusetts Certifies Direct And Indirect Purchaser Classes In Alleged Pay-For-Delay Action Relating To Solodyn
On October 16, 2017, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted class certification to two classes of purchasers allegedly injured by a pay-for-delay scheme relating to prescription drug Solodyn: a Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class (“DPPs”) and an End-Payor Plaintiff class (“EPPs”). In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02503 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2017). In certifying the DPP class, the Court rejected the argument that affiliated corporate entities should be consolidated in evaluating the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). In certifying both classes, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ experts’ proffered methodologies to establish common or class-wide impact as adequate for Rule 23 purposes over a variety of defense challenges.