Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—S.D.N.Y.: Owner of London Metal Exchange dismissed from aluminum price fixing suit
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Senate subcommittee hearing planned on compulsory music copyright licenses
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: U.K. competition authority seeks comment on redress settlements
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Utility’s pricing plans alleged to penalize solar energy customers, exclude competition
    • ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: $415M settlement in high-tech employee class action gets preliminary nod
    • ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Class notice approved in direct purchasers’ settlement of optical disk drive price fixing suit
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC offering $50K in prizes for robocall combat contests
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC, states challenge robocalls pitching cruise line vacations
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—E.D. Mo.: Attorney fee award to pharmacy franchisor in arbitration confirmed
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Cadwalader adds leading European competition attorney Vincent Brophy
    • PRIVACY NEWS: Civil liberties groups urge White House to make further changes to privacy plan
    • RICO—7th Cir.: RICO claim not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—10th Cir.: Car dealership steers clear of Colorado CPA claims
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—Cal. App.: Dollar Rent A Car eludes claims over 61¢ tax
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—D.N.J.: Products liability law did not extinguish consumer fraud claims against fire protection system maker
    • STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES: Hospitals have new tool to address loss of physician referrals from acquisitions
    • SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, TOP STORY—S.D.N.Y.: Owner of London Metal Exchange dismissed from aluminum price fixing suit, (Mar 4, 2015)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Covington & Burling LLP | Girard Gibbs LLP | Howard & Associates PA | Latham & Watkins LLP | Latham & Watkins LLP | Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | The Mehdi Firm
    Organizations Mentioned:Becnel Law Firm, LLC | Covington & Burling, LLP | Girard Gibbs, LLP | Glencore plc | HKEx | Henry Bath & Son Ltd. | Holland & Knight, LLP | Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd. | Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd. | Howard & Associates, PA | Latham & Watkins, LLP | London Metal Exchange | London Metal Exchange Ltd. | Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson, LLP | Skadden Arps | The Mehdi Firm, PC

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    In an action alleging a conspiracy to drive up the price of aluminum, the federal district court in New York City has refused to exercise personal jurisdiction over four foreign defendants—LME Holdings Limited, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing ...

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    In an action alleging a conspiracy to drive up the price of aluminum, the federal district court in New York City has refused to exercise personal jurisdiction over four foreign defendants—LME Holdings Limited, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx), Henry Bath & Son Ltd., and Glencore plc. The complaining aluminum purchasers failed to meet their burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction over each of the entities. Thus, these defendants were dismissed. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery (In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, March 3, 2015, Forrest, K.).

    The aluminum purchasers allege a conspiracy to restrain the output of aluminum among the London Metal Exchange Ltd. (LME)—the self-described “world centre for industrial metals trading”—owners and operators of metal storage warehouses, and metal traders. They contend that so-called “load-out delays” at aluminum warehouses certified by the LME increased the price of a premium partially derived from the cost of storing aluminum. The key instrumentality of the conspiracy, according to the plaintiffs, is the LME’s Warehousing Committee, which establishes rules for LME warehouses.

    HKEx owns the LME. LME Holdings is the corporate parent of the LME. U.K-based Henry Bath & Son Ltd. “owns and operated numerous LME-certified warehouses in the United States,” and Glencore is described as “a multinational commodities trading and mining corporation.”

    The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that it could exercise jurisdiction over the four defendants based on their participation in the conspiracy. Instead, it would rely on existing jurisdictional principles. “The rules and doctrines applicable to personal jurisdiction are sufficient without the extension of the law to a separate and certainly nebulous `conspiracy jurisdiction' doctrine,” in the court's view.

    The plaintiffs attempted to base personal jurisdiction on the fact that these four defendants or their affiliates sat on the LME’s Warehousing Committee. However, membership alone did not constitute the necessary purposeful availment of the laws of the United States or action directed at the United States to support jurisdiction, the court held. This allegation was deemed too generalized, and too devoid of meaningful context to provide a prima facie basis for jurisdiction.

    With respect to LME Holdings, the court was not convinced that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish that the LME and LME Holdings were indistinguishable for jurisdictional purposes. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued that to the extent the LME was present in New York, or in the United States, LME Holdings was too.

    HKEx was alleged to have acquired LME Holdings and the LME, to have operated LME Holdings as a “mere department,” and to have the ability to “make meaningful changes to improve the situation in the aluminum market” and failed to do so. The court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations fell short with regard to the HKEx, as well. There was no basis for an inference that HKEx, LME Holdings, and the LME ignored corporate formalities or were in some way indistinguishable to permit jurisdiction over HKEx and LME Holdings, in the court's view.

    Jurisdictional discovery. The plaintiffs requested jurisdictional discovery as an alternative to dismissal. The court denied the request in light of the massive government investigations into the challenged conduct. This was not a case where the plaintiffs were required to guess at bases for jurisdiction, the court noted. In addition, the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints were denied.

    The case is 13-md-2481 (KBF).

    Attorneys: Benjamin Martin Jaccarino (Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP) for Superior Extrusion Inc. Phillip Timothy Howard (Howard & Associates PA) for Master Screens Inc. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. (Becnel Law Firm, LLC) for River Parish Contractors, Inc. Azra Zahoor Mehdi (The Mehdi Firm) for Viva Railings,LLC. Adam E. Polk (Girard Gibbs LLP) for D-Tek Manufacturing. Benjamin M. McGovern (Holland & Knight, LLP) for GS Power Holdings LLC and Metro International Trade Services, LLC. Jennifer Lynn Giordano (Latham & Watkins LLP) for London Metal Exchange Ltd. Henry Liu (Covington & Burling LLP) for Henry Bath LLC. John M. Nannes (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) for Pacorini Metals USA, LLC. Margaret M. Zwisler (Latham & Watkins LLP) for Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd.

    Companies: London Metal Exchange Ltd.; Glencore plc; Henry Bath & Son Ltd.; Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd.

    MainStory: TopStory Antitrust NewYorkNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use