Click on a case for more details: Click the title to close the description
Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation
(In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1083 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., two Japanese companies, Ajinomoto and Kyowa Hakko, and two Korean companies, Sewon and Cheil Sugar Co., allegedly conspired to fix the price of synthetic lysine, which is used agriculturally as a food additive. During litigation, there was videotaped evidence of company executives at meetings in several Asian and European cities discussing illegal sales targets to limit supply. These allegations were settled for $50 Million. We assisted potential claimants, primarily feed and manufacturing companies, in filing for settlement.
Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation
(In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation, 115 F.3d. 456 (7th Cir. 1997))
Brand-name prescription drug manufacturers and wholesalers allegedly conspired to horizontally fix the price of brand-name prescription drugs by selling the same product to different customers at different prices. This allegedly favored larger clients, such as hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and nursing homes, over smaller patrons, such as neighborhood family pharmacies. A class action was brought into Court and settlements reached $600 Million for 40,000+ independent drug retailers. We assisted drug retailers in filing their settlement claims and this was one of our most successful campaigns.
Catfish Antitrust Litigation
(In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, 826 F. Supp. 1019 (N.D. Miss. 1993))
In the late 1980’s, processors of catfish products, including subsidiaries of Hormel and ConAgra, allegedly engaged in price fixing. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled for about $28 Million. Buyers of catfish products who purchased the products from 1985 through 1988 were eligible to file claims for settlement. We assisted potential claimants in filing their settlement claims.
Choline Chloride Antitrust Litigation
Choline chloride manufacturers allegedly conspired to fix the price of choline chloride, also known as vitamin B4, which is an ingredient used in animal feed and pet foods. A class action went to Court and the Court ordered defendants Mitsui & Co., Ltd., Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., DuCoa, LP, and DCV, Inc. to pay $49,539,234, which increased to $148,617,702 under federal antitrust law. We assisted potential claimants, primarily feed companies, in filing for settlement.successful campaigns.
Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation
(In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1092 (N.D. Cal. 1997))
In the early 1990’s, citric acid producers allegedly engaged in price fixing. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled. All direct citric acid buyers in the U.S. between July 1, 1991 and June 30, 1995 who purchased citric acid from Archer Daniels Midland Co., Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., Jungbunzlauer, Inc., Haarmann & Reimer Corp., Cerestar Bioproducts, and Cargill, Inc. were eligible for settlement. We assisted potential claimants, primarily chemical companies and bottling companies, in filing for settlement.
Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation
(In re Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1093 (D. Utah 1996))
This litigation began in 1992 when the U.S. Department of Justice started its investigation of the explosives industry. In 1995, two of the biggest explosives manufacturers pled guilty to conspiring to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers. They paid criminal fines of $15 Million and $10 Million, respectively. This case, which is one of the largest litigations in the mining industry, reported public settlements alone of $75 Million. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Copper Products Antitrust Litigation
(In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation, 74 F. Supp. 2d 393, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1999))
Sumitomo Corp., as well as Sumitomo Corp. of America, Yasuo Hamanaka, Global Minerals & Metals Corp., Inc., R. David Campbell, and Carl D. Alm, allegedly engaged in price manipulation of copper products in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. A class action lawsuit was brought into Court and these allegations were settled for $43.5 Million. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
De Beers Class Action Settlement
(Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. and American Diamond Tool & Gauge, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DB Investments, Inc., CSO Valuations A.G., Central Selling Org., Diamond Trading Co., De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., and De Beers Centenary A.G., Civil Action Index No. 01-4463 (SRC) (D.N.J. 2004))
De Beers diamond cartel allegedly engaged in price fixing and monopolization of the international diamond business through its control of mines and agreements with foreign diamond suppliers. A class action lawsuit was brought into Court and De Beers settled the allegations for $290,000,000. Direct and indirect purchasers of rough diamonds and resellers of diamonds, including retailers, who bought rough diamonds from De Beers or one of its affiliates from September 20, 1997 through September 25, 2003, are eligible to file for settlement. Claim forms became available on December 21, 2007, and we have begun to assist potential claimants in filing for settlement.
DRAM Antitrust Litigation
(In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1486 (N.D. Cal. 2006))
DRAM manufacturers allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of DRAM and/or to allocate among themselves major customers and accounts in violation of federal antitrust law. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled for $325,997,000. Direct buyers of DRAM who bought DRAM in the U.S. between April 1, 1999 and June 30, 2002 from any of the named manufacturers or their subsidiaries are eligible to file for settlement. The manufacturers include: Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Crucial Technology, Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp., Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Mosel-Vitelic Technology Corporation, Mosel-Vitelic Corporation (USA), Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation USA, Winbond Electronics Corporation, Winbond Electronics, Corporation America, Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and NEC Electronics America, Inc. We are assisting potential claimants in filing for settlement. The deadline for filing in this action is December 31, 2007.
Exxon Antitrust Litigation
(Allapattah Services, Inc., et al. v. Exxon Corp., Case No. 91-0986-CIV (S.D. Fla. 2004))
Exxon had allegedly been overcharging all of its direct served dealers for the wholesale price of motor fuel. Under Exxon’s Discount for Cash (DFC) program, which was implemented in August 1982, Exxon charged dealers a separate 3% credit processing transaction fee. Exxon allegedly claimed that it would offset this fee by reducing the wholesale price of motor fuel by that amount. Exxon allegedly collected the credit processing fee but did not reduce the wholesale price of motor fuel. A class action, which was comprised of current and former Exxon direct served dealers went to Court, and the Court returned a verdict in favor of the dealers. All Exxon direct served dealers who purchased motor fuel from Exxon between March 1, 1983 and August 28, 1994 according to a Sales Agreement were eligible to file claims for reimbursement of the overcharge on every gallon of motor fuel bought, regardless of whether they participated in the DFC program. We retained a company to assist us in locating potential claimants, and then we assisted those claimants in filing for reimbursement.
Harbor Maintenance Tax Refund
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 created the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF), also known as the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). The HMF required U.S. port and harbor users to share in port and harbor maintenance costs. In 1994, the Court of International Trade (CIT) found that the HMF as imposed on exports violated the Constitution’s Export Clause. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court also found that the HMF as imposed on exports was unconstitutional (U.S. v. U.S. Shoe Corp.). The Court ordered Customs to stop collecting the HMF on exports and to refund the HMF that had already been paid. In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals declared that there was no time limitation for filing a refund request from Customs (Swisher Int’l. v. U.S.). However, in 2001, the Treasury declared that refund requests more than a year old must have been filed by December 31, 2001. We assisted several potential claimants in filing refund requests. After 9-11, Customs slowed down the processing of refund requests and we began a Grass Roots Campaign, which involved writing letters to Congressional representatives nationwide. Soon after that Customs hired more personnel to process the claims.
High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation
(In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, Dellwood Farms, Inc., et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 216 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2000))
In the early 1990’s, five major high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) producers allegedly conspired to raise and fix prices. HFCS, which is made from corn, is the main sweetener in regular soda and many other food products. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations settled for $531 Million. Purchasers of HFCS in the United States from 1991 to 1995 who bought HFCS from any of the defendant companies (Archer Daniels Midland Company, A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, Cargill, Incorporated, CPC International, Inc., and American Maize-Products Company) were eligible to file claims for settlement. We assisted potential claimants in filing their settlement claims.
Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation
(In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, M.D.L. 878 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 1995))
In the 1990’s, three major baby formula companies, Bristol Meyers Squibb, American Home Products, and Abbott Laboratories, allegedly conspired to horizontally fix the price of infant formula products such as Enfamil and Similac. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled for $126 Million. We assisted infant formula purchasers in filing their settlement claims.
Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
(In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1261 (3rd Cir. 2002))
Linerboard manufacturers allegedly engaged in a continuing combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce in violation of federal antitrust law. A class action lawsuit was brought into Court and the Court established two classes: (1) all persons in the U.S. who purchased corrugated containers directly from any defendant at any time during the period October 1, 1993 through November 30, 1995; and (2) all individuals and entities who purchased corrugated sheets in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants during the class period from October 1, 1993 through November 30, 1995. The defendants included Stone Container Corporation, Jefferson Smurfit Corp., Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., International Paper Co., Georgia Pacific Corp., Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., Temple-Inland, Inc., Gaylord Container Corp., Union Camp Corp., Tenneco, Inc., Tenneco Packaging, and Packaging Corporation of America. Defendants Temple-Inland Inc. and Gaylord Container Corp. settled these allegations for $8 Million. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Medical X-Ray Film Antitrust Litigation
(In re Medical X-Ray Film Antitrust Litigation, CV 93-5904 (E.D. NY 1998))
In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of medical X-ray film allegedly engaged in price fixing. Medical X-ray film includes all forms of medical X-ray and imaging films, such as general radiography films (both blue sensitive and green sensitive), mammography films, radiation therapy films, CRT and video imaging films, laser imaging films, duplicating films, spot films, and cine films. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled for $39,360,000 minus legal fees and expenses. Potential claimants eligible for settlement included purchasers of medical X-ray film between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 1993 who directly purchased the film from Eastman Kodak Co., E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., Bayer Corp. f/k/a Miles, Inc., Agfa, and Fuji Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. We assisted potential claimants, including medical centers and hospitals, in filing for settlement.
Methionine Antitrust Litigation
(In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1311 (N.D. Cal. 2002))
Methionine manufactures allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of methionine in the U.S. Methionine, which is used in the feed additives industry, includes all forms of the amino acid methionine, all forms of methionine-derived products, and the methionine chemical intermediates. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled. Methionine purchasers who bought the product between January 1, 1985 and December 21, 2000 from Novus International, Inc., Mitsui & Co., Ltd., Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., Aventis SA, Aventis Inc. f/k/a Rhone-Poulenc Animal Nutrition, Degussa AG, or Degussa Corp. were eligible to file settlement claims. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation
Docket Number: 1:05-md-01720
Settlement: Between $5.54 Billion (minimum amount) and $6.24 Billion (maximum amount)
Visa and MasterCard, along with additional named defendants, face allegations of fixing interchange fees, the fee paid by merchants to accept Visa and MasterCard for payment from customers. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to unlawfully fix the price of “interchange fees” and other fees charged to merchants for transactions processed over the Visa and MasterCard networks.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed approval of the original settlement and returned the case to the District Court on June 30, 2016. A revised settlement agreement was filed on September 18, 2018. On January 24, 2019, the Eastern District Court of New York court granted preliminary approval to the revised settlement agreement. The Court granted final approval to the revised settlement on December 13, 2019. An appeal was filed with the Court, and proceedings are continuing.
The class period is from January 1, 2004 through January 25, 2019. No claim forms are available at this time, and no claims-filing deadline exists. No-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during any claims-filing period. No one is required to sign up with any third-party service in order to participate in any settlement. For additional information regarding the status of the litigation, visit the Court-approved website for this case, www.paymentcardsettlement.com.
Residential Flush Door Antitrust Litigation
(U.S. v. Premdor Inc., Premdor U.S. Holdings, Inc., International Paper Company, and Masonite Corporation, Civil No.: 1:01CV01696 (D.C. Cir. 2001))
Between June 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, flush door manufacturers, one of which was headquartered in Tampa, Florida, allegedly conspired to fix prices of residential flush doors. The flush door manufacturers included Steves & Sons, Inc., Arrow Door Co., Inc., Jeffrey Gotlieb, Premdor Corp, LEDCO, Inc., Illinois Flush Door, Inc., and Young Door Co. $6 Million in criminal fines were paid; a class action was brought into Court, which resulted in settlement of these allegations. Under the settlement agreement, door manufacturers contributed $2.4 Million in residential door discount certificates, as well as monetary amounts to the settlement fund. We assisted potential claimants file for settlement. One of our claimants had about $100,000 in certificates but could no longer use the certificates; we assisted this claimant in bartering with another claimant who could use the certificates.
Sorbates Antitrust Litigation
(In re Sorbates Antitrust Litigation, MDL C98-4886 (N.D. Cal. 1997))
Ohio’s Attorney General brought an antitrust lawsuit against Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industries, Co., Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients, GmbH, Celanese AG, CAN Holdings, Inc., Aventis A.G., Nutrinova, Inc., and Eastman Chemical Co. Purchasers of foodstuffs containing Sorbates from January 1, 1979 through July 1, 2003 were eligible to file settlement claims. Sorbates, which are non-toxic chemical preservatives, are used as mold inhibitors in high-moisture and high-sugar food and drink products. They are also used in household products, such as shampoo. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Subpart V Crude Oil Refund
(Philip P. Kalodner v. Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy, et al., 310 F.3d 767 (D.C. Cir. 2002))
In the 1980s, the Court ordered major oil companies to refund crude oil overcharges because they had allegedly been fixing the price of petroleum at the well head. The Court awarded $8 billion in refunds; $7 billion went to the states and $1 billion was set aside for petroleum purchasers. The Department of Energy (DOE) administered proceedings to make refunds available to members of the class action, which included buyers who bought refined petroleum products between 1973 and 1981. We assisted petroleum buyers eligible for refunds, such as churches, schools, and companies, in filing for refunds. In one of our proudest recoveries, we helped a church obtain refunds on 1.5 billion gallons of crude oil.
Telecommunications Excise Tax Refund
(American Bankers Insurance Group v. U.S., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8132 (11th Cir. May 10, 2005))
By law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can charge a 3% telecommunications excise tax on long-distance telephone calls that are charged based on distance and duration. However, the IRS was improperly collecting this tax from customers that were charged for their long-distance calls based on duration only. Originally, the Telephone Excise Tax was imposed in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War, which ended the same year. In 1902 this tax was lifted, but was reenacted not long after to fund World War I, and has been in place since then. Recently, the Court ordered the IRS to refund this wrongfully collected tax money, and taxpayers who bought telecommunications services during the three-year statute of limitations were eligible to file claims for refunds. We assisted taxpayers eligible for refunds in filing their claims.
Texas Bread Antitrust Litigation
(In re Texas Bread Antitrust Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 3-95CV48 (E.D. Tex. 1996))
Several bakeries, including Campbell Taggart Baking Companies, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Texas and Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, Inc., and Campbell Taggart’s and Flower’s successor, predecessor, subsidiary, and affiliate entities, allegedly conspired to fix, raise, and maintain prices of their bread products. A class action went to Court and these allegations were settled for $13.75 Million. The class consisted of individuals and entities who bought bread products directly from the bakeries involved between January 1, 1977 and March 28, 1996 in Texas and contiguous market areas including, the cities of Shreveport, Louisiana, Texarakna, Arkansas, Roswell, New Mexico, and Hugo and Lawton, Oklahoma. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation
(In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, No. 04-3122 (L), 04-3163 (Con) (2nd Cir. 2005))
Visa and MasterCard allegedly obligated merchants to accept Visa and MasterCard signature debit card transactions at purportedly excessively high prices, and Visa and MasterCard allegedly conspired to monopolize the debit card business in the U.S. Visa and MasterCard’s debit products are also labeled Visa Check, MasterMoney, and Debit MasterCard. A class action was brought into Court and these allegations were settled for $3.05 Billion. In addition to the monetary settlement, Visa and MasterCard agreed to take action to untie debit cards from credit cards, including the following: eliminating their “Honor All Cards” policies, which required merchants that accepted their credit cards to also accept their debit card transactions; lowering debit card fees for an interim period by one-third; and re-labeling the Visa Check and MasterMoney debit cards with the word “DEBIT” on the front. All businesses and organizations in the U.S. that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards for payment at any time during the period October 25, 1992 to June 21, 2003 were eligible to file settlement claims. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Vitamin Products Antitrust Litigation (Direct Purchasers)
Vitamin manufacturers allegedly fixed the prices of vitamins and vitamin products, allocated markets, and agreed not to compete with each other. In the first phase of this case, an antitrust lawsuit was settled in certain states, and the vitamin manufacturers agreed to monetary payments for buyers of affected products. The second phase of this case for products settlements began on February 18, 2003 with defendants Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc., Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd., Tanabe USA, Inc., Tanabe Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Reilly Industries, Inc., Reilly Chemicals, S.A., Lonza Group Ltd., Lonza Inc., Lonza AG, Degussa AG, Degussa Corp., and Nepera Inc. We assisted potential claimants in filing claims for settlement.
Vitamin Products Antitrust Litigation (Indirect Purchasers)
BASF Corp., Daiichi Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A., Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., Roche Vitamins Inc., and Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of, and allocate volumes, markets, or customers for, vitamin products. Indirect vitamin products, which were involved in this case, are found in products not directly bought from the vitamin manufacturer. Some of these vitamins include vitamin A, astaxanthin, vitamin B1 (thiamin), vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin B4 (choline chloride), vitamin B5 (calpan), vitamin B6, vitamin B9 (folic acid), vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamine pharma), beta-carotene, vitamin C, canthaxanthin, vitamin E, and vitamin H (biotin). Also included in the lawsuit were products containing or constituting (in whole or in part) any of the above vitamins, as well as products derived from animals that consumed any of the above vitamins. We assisted potential claimants in filing for settlement.
Freight Forwarding Antitrust Settlement
Precision Associates, Inc. v Panalpina World Transport, No. 08-cv-0004
In this case, there are 63 named defendants worldwide who have been accused of conspiring to fix prices for freight forwarding services, agreeing to fix various charges and surcharges for international freight shipping via ground, air, rail, and ocean. Approximately 57 defendants have currently entered into settlement agreements with class members as of June 2015. In addition to the settlement funds contributed by the settling defendants, many will also contribute at least 75% or all of the funds they will receive from the on-going Air Cargo settlements.
The court extended the claim deadline. Starting with an original filing deadline of November 2013, which was moved to August 2014, with a final extention to August 24, 2015 for all eligible class members who qualify to submit a claim. A second group of non-settling defendants have agreed to settle, a separate filing deadline will be used for the new funds on March 31, 2016.
Defendants: ABX Logistics Group; Air Express International USA, Inc.; Airborne Express, Inc.; Baltrans Logistics, Inc.; BAX Global, Inc.; Con-Way, Inc.; DSV A/S; DSV Solutions Holding A/S; DSV Air & Sea Ltd.; Dachser Intelligent Logistics; Dachser Transport of America, Inc.; DB Schenker; Deutsche Bahn AG; Deutsche Post AG; DHL Danzas; DHL Express (USA), Inc.; DHL Global Forwarding; DHL Global Forwarding Japan K.K.; EGL Inc.; Eagle Global Logistics, LP; Exel Global Logistics, Inc.; Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.; Geo Logistics; Geodis Group; Geodis Wilson USA, Inc.; Hankyu Hanshin Express Holdings Corporation; Hanshin Air Cargo Co., Ltd.; Hanshin Air Cargo USA, Inc.; Hellman Worldwide Logistics, Inc.; Japan Aircargo Forwarders Association; Jet Speed Logistics, Ltd.; Jet Speed Air Cargo Forwarders (USA), Inc.; Jet Speed Logistics (USA), LLC; “K” Line Logistics (U.S.A.), Inc.; “K” Line Logistics, Ltd.; Kintetsu World Express (USA), Inc.; Kintetsu World Express, Inc.; Kuhne + Nagel International AG; Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.; MOL Logistics (Japan) Co., Ltd.; MOL Logistics (U.S.A.), Inc.; Morrison Express Corporation (USA); Morrison Express Logistics PTE Ltd.; Nippon Express Co., Ltd.; Nippon Express USA, Inc.; Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co., Ltd.; Nissin Corporation; Nissin International Transport U.S.A., Inc.; Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd.; Panalpina, Inc.; Schenker AG; Schenker, Inc.; SDV International Logistics; Spedlogswiss; Toll Global Forwarding (USA), Inc.; United Parcel Service, Inc.; UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.; UTi Worldwide, Inc.; United Aircargo Consolidators, Inc.; Vantec World Transport Co., Ltd.; Vantec World Transport (USA), Inc.; Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd; Yamato Transport U.S.A., Inc.; Yusen Air & Sea Service (U.S.A.), Inc.; and Yusen Air & Sea Service Co., Ltd
Key Points About Our Company
CARS is dedicated to excellence and precision – two things that have taken us far in the industry. We pride ourselves on our work…with almost 30 years in the industry our resources are deep seated, allowing our clients to focus on the daily operations of their business.