Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Ocean shipping purchasers seek preliminary approval of $53M settlement in price fixing action, (Dec 23, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Purchasers of ocean shipping services, alleging that seven freight forwarding companies conspired to fix prices, are seeking preliminary approval of a $53 million settlement against the companies, according to a motion for preliminary approval filed in the federal district court of Brooklyn, New York (Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport Ltd., December 22, 2015).

A group of businesses filed a class action in 2008 against various domestic and foreign freight forwarding companies for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of international ocean shipping services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Previously, the court granted final approval of settlements with 20 defendants. The plaintiffs are seeking preliminary approval of a proposed settlement under which seven defendants will pay $53 million to be distributed among the class in exchange for release of all claims, ending the long-running litigation.

According to the memorandum in support of the plaintiffs’ motion, the proposed settlement falls within the possible range of approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate and provides substantial benefits to the settlement class. The settlement was the product of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced and informed counsel, has no obvious deficiencies, and does not grant preferential treatment to a class representative or segments of the class, the plaintiffs claim.

The settlement purportedly satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): (1) the class is so numerous as to make joinder of its impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the class representatives are typical of class members; and (4) the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

The requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are also met, the memorandum asserts. The common questions of law or fact regarding the existence and scope of the conspiracy predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Also, the plaintiffs have shown that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Finally, the plaintiffs will propose a class notice plan that is substantially similar to the class notice plan approved and implemented for previous settlements to ensure that notice of the proposed settlement is given in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the settlement, the motion states.

Attorneys: Christopher Lovell (Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP), Steven N. Williams (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP), W. Joseph Bruckner (Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.), and Daniel E. Gustafson (Gustafson Gluek PLLC) for the plaintiffs.

Companies: Deutsche Post AG; Danzas Corporation; DHL Express Inc.; Global Forwarding Japan K.K.; DHL Japan Inc.; Exel Global Logistics, Inc.; Air Express International U.S.A., Inc.

News: Antitrust NewYorkNews