Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Pa.: Settlements preliminarily approved in drywall price fixing suit, (Mar 17, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Direct and indirect purchasers have obtained preliminary approval of proposed settlements with various domestic drywall manufacturers accused of conspiring to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of drywall products sold in the United States. The federal district court in Philadelphia granted preliminary approval for settlements involving defendant manufacturers TIN Inc., USG Corp., United States Gypsum Co., and L&W Supply Corp. (In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, March 16, 2015, Baylson, M.).

First, in two separate orders, the court granted preliminary approval of direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ proposed settlement with TIN, Inc., finding the settlement agreement sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate. With regard to the direct purchasers, a class was provisionally certified for all persons or entities that purchased Wallboard in the United States directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries from January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2014. A “Nationwide Injunctive Class” and “Indirect Purchaser State Damages Classes” were also provisionally certified concerning the indirect purchasers’ actions.

The court signed two additional orders granting preliminary approval of direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ proposed settlement with defendants USG Corp., United States Gypsum Co., and L&W Supply Corp. The same classes were provisionally certified for the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs respectively.

In all four orders, the court concluded that members of the settlement classes are so numerous that joinder would be impracticable; there are issues of law and fact common to the settlement classes; plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the settlement class members; and counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the settlement class members. Additionally, for purposes of preliminary approval, the court found that provisional certification of the settlement classes was warranted in light of the proposed settlement because common issues, including whether the defendants entered into any conspiracy, predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the settlement classes. Lastly, the settlement of the action on a class basis was deemed superior to other means of resolving the suit as it relates to the class members.

A hearing will be held July 15, 2015 to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement and to consider whether to approve the request to utilize a portion of the settlement fund to pay plaintiffs’ ongoing litigation expenses.

The case is MDL No. 2437.

Attorneys: Robert S. Green (Green & Noblin, PC) and Whitney Street (Block & Leviton, LLP) for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. H. Laddie Montague, Jr. (Berger & Montague, PC), Kit A. Pierson (Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC), and Eugene A. Spector (Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC) for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. Philip S. Beck (Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP) for USG Corp., United States Gypsum Co., and L&W Supply Corp. James T. McKeown (Foley & Lardner LLP) and Edward G. Biester, III (Duane Morris LLP) for TIN Inc.

Companies: TIN Inc.; USG Corp.; United States Gypsum Co.; L&W Supply Corp.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews