Bumble Bee Foods, Starkist Co. and Thai Union Frozen Products have been fixing tuna prices since 2011, according to a putative class action brought by Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 15-1714 (S.D. Cal., filed August 3, 2015). The complaint notes that while tuna consumption has fallen in the United States, prices have risen, which cannot be explained by raw material costs, the cooperative says. The complaint also details opportunities for the companies to meet and collude, such as industry conferences and various mergers and acquisitions within the “oligopolistic structure” of the industry. For claims of Sherman Act violations, the cooperative seeks to represent a nationwide class of those affected by the alleged price-fixing, court declarations of conspiracy, treble damages and an injunction from continuing any sort of agreement or understanding about maintaining prices. Issue 574
Tag Archives price-fixing
The European Court of Justice has refused to void a lower court’s decision against Dole Foods confirming an $83 million fine shared with other companies resulting from a finding of collusion to fix the prices of bananas sold in several European countries. Dole Food & Dole Germany v. Commission, No. C-286/13 P (E.C.J., order entered March 19, 2015). Dole sought to annul or reduce its fine, arguing the commission had not proven that the weekly communications between banana-producing companies just before prices were set were intended to fix prices. The company also argued that the lower court had lumped price quotes for green bananas and yellow bananas when the price-quoting schemes are separate. The prices of some bananas were set weeks before they were sold, while other companies sold their inventories at different times, Dole argued; as a result, the bananas from different companies were not in direct competition. The…
A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in Pennsylvania has determined that individual-purchaser plaintiffs and a direct-purchaser class failed to discover evidence that U.S. chocolate companies conspired to increase prices for immediate-consumption products between 2002 and 2007, and, with “nothing more than speculation as to the who, what, when, where, and how of communications that allegedly facilitated the parallel price increases,” the court was compelled to grant the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ Section 1 antitrust claims under the Sherman Act. See In re Chocolate Confectionery Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1935 (M.D. Pa., decided February 26, 2014). The litigation involves some 91 lawsuits transferred to the MDL court for pre-trial proceedings. Defendants Nestlé U.S.A., Inc., The Hershey Co., and Mars, Inc. and Mars Snackfood U.S. LLC control about 75 percent of the U.S. chocolate-products market, and during the relevant time period, which saw prices for cocoa increase 53…
According to a news source, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (BKA) has imposed €60 million (US$81.4 million) in fines against 11 chocolate and confectionary companies, including the German subsidiaries of Kraft Foods and Nestlé SA, for allegedly establishing a cartel in the late 2000s to fix prices. While Nestlé has reportedly indicated that it will challenge the fines, claiming that the allegations are unjustified and that BKA misinterpreted the law, a Kraft spokesperson has apparently confirmed that the company will pay its fine. BKA President Andreas Mundt said, “In 2007 raw materials prices for chocolate production such as milk and cocoa rose sharply. Companies obviously wanted to be sure they could pass these costs on to consumers. Competition with competitors was quickly switched off and consumers were burdened with price increases.” Prices reportedly rose by as much as 25 percent. Company offices were searched after a whistleblower came forward in 2008, and…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the “filed rate doctrine” does not bar the state law-based claims of dairy farmers alleging that milk marketing cooperatives (handlers) provided erroneous reports to the federal government which relied on them to set a minimum price structure for raw milk sales; as a result, the farmers purportedly lost millions of dollars. Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., No. 10-16448 (9th Cir., decided August 7, 2012). Each of the four named plaintiffs in this consolidated proceeding filed claims on behalf of a nationwide class alleging (i) negligent misrepresentation, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment, all under California common law; and (ii) violation of California’s Unfair Business Practices Law. The filed rate doctrine “‘is a judicial creation that arises from decisions interpreting federal statutes that give federal agencies exclusive jurisdiction to set rates for specified utilities, originally through rate-setting procedures involving the…
A federal court in Idaho has denied all pending motions to dismiss in litigation brought by direct and indirect potato purchasers who allege that the defendants violated antitrust laws by agreeing to reduce the supply of potatoes in the United States to increase their price. In re Fresh & Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 10-2186 (D. Idaho, filed July 27, 2012). The plaintiffs contend that the defendants formed cooperatives which agreed to limit crop acreage and paid farmers to destroy existing potatoes or refrain from growing additional potatoes. Assessing the allegations in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the court determined that they met the plausibility pleading standard required under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Twombly and Iqbal rulings.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that liability insurers of a major U.S. egg producer have no obligation to defend it in class action lawsuits alleging that the egg producer conspired with others to keep the price of eggs artificially high. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., No. 11-1599 (7th Cir., decided November 1, 2011). Rose Acre Farms claimed that the antitrust actions sought damages falling under what the policies call “personal and advertising injury.” The court disagreed, noting that the company tried to “connect its advertising to the antitrust suit in [a] convoluted manner.” Because the antitrust complaints had nothing to do with trademark infringement, i.e., using another’s advertising idea without permission, which is the conduct covered by the “advertising injury” provision, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling denying coverage
According to a news source, two antitrust lawsuits were filed in a California federal court this week alleging that dairy trade groups and coops manipulated dairy prices between 2003 and 2010 under a program that slaughtered more than 500,000 cows. The suits reportedly allege that the National Milk Producers Federation and major dairy farmer cooperatives, under a “dairy herd retirement program,” cost consumers in excess of $9.5 billion. Plaintiff’s counsel Steve Berman released a statement claiming that the lawsuits, brought on behalf of individual consumers in California, New York and Wisconsin, as well as Compassion Over Killing, “will protect consumers from artificially inflated milk prices and also will prevent the unnecessary and shameful killing of tens of thousands of cows each year.” One of the lawsuits, Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, seeks to certify 27 state classes and a District of Columbia class, alleging violation of state antitrust and…
A federal court in Vermont has certified a class of 9,000 to 10,000 dairy farmers who allege that Dean Foods Co. and others engaged in anticompetitive conduct and given preliminary approval to a settlement reached in December 2010. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 09-00230 (D. Vt., order entered May 4, 2011). Under the settlement, Dean Foods does not admit any wrongdoing, but will create a $30 million settlement fund. Its co-defendants have objected to the settlement, but the court determined that they lack standing to oppose preliminary approval of the Dean settlement. The court also noted that they opposed a settlement provision that has been removed. The court denied several motions to intervene and scheduled a final hearing date for July 18, 2011. The plaintiffs alleged conspiracies to monopolize, fix prices and restrain trade. Common questions of law and fact included whether the defendants “conspired to fix,…
According to a news source, a co-defendant in litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the northeastern U.S. milk market has filed objections to the tentative deal reached by Dean Foods Co. and the dairy farmers who filed the lawsuit. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., No. __ (D. Vt., settlement reached December 24, 2010). More information about the settlement, which must be approved by a court, appears in Issue 376 of this Update. Dairy Marketing Services, LLC and a number of individual dairy farmers have also apparently opposed the settlement. The objectors contend that the settlement will result in price erosion for all dairy farmers and creates “both winners and losers in the class of dairy farmers represented by a single law firm by taking market access from one group of dairy farmers at the expense of another within the same class.” They also claim that the small settlement of…
