{"id":1040,"date":"2024-01-05T15:42:54","date_gmt":"2024-01-05T19:42:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1040"},"modified":"2024-01-05T15:43:03","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T19:43:03","slug":"new-york-federal-court-denies-class-certification-to-chemical-purchasers-in-price-fixing-antitrust-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/01\/05\/new-york-federal-court-denies-class-certification-to-chemical-purchasers-in-price-fixing-antitrust-case\/","title":{"rendered":"New York Federal Court Denies Class Certification To Chemical Purchasers In Price-Fixing Antitrust Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean P. McConnell<\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/u><\/i>\u00a0 On December 28, 2023, Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied<\/a>\u00a0a motion by Plaintiffs \u2013 purchasers of caustic soda \u2013 for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) in Miami Products & Chemical Co., et al., v. Olin Corp., et al., No. 1:19-CV-385 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2023). Judge Wolford refused to certify the putative class of caustic soda purchasers because individual issues predominated over questions common to the class and because the proposed class was not objectively ascertainable. As one of the final class certification rulings of the year, the decision is instructive reading for corporate defendants facing class-wide claims of alleged price-fixing.<\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased caustic soda, a chemical co-produced with chlorine that is used in a variety of industries, from Defendants between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018. Defendants are the five largest producers of caustic soda sold in the United States. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants unlawfully conspired to raise prices of caustic soda. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants violated antitrust laws by engaging in parallel conduct of announcing and implementing over a dozen price increases during the class period that resulted in prices of caustic soda rising by nearly 10% more than prices would have otherwise existed absent the alleged cartel.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Order Denying Class Certification<\/b><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Defendants mostly focused their opposition on grounds that the Plaintiffs did not adequately represent the proposed class, that the claims were not typical of the proposed class, and that individual issues would predominate. Plaintiffs\u2019 proposed class excluded purchases of caustic soda during the class period pursuant to contracts because the alleged anticompetitive price increases would not have impacted the contract prices.<\/p>\n

The Court issued a 51-page ruling in denying Plaintiffs\u2019 motion. To determine whether there has been class-wide injury, the Court noted that there must to be a reliable methodology for whether particular caustic soda purchases should be included or excluded from the class. The Court concluded that the methodology of Plaintiffs\u2019 expert could not accurately determine whether a particular purchase fell within the class or not. The Court also opined that Plaintiffs could not establish an alternative common proof of class-wide impact because of the complexities of determining the prices paid for caustic soda during the class period; therefore, individual questions would predominate over common questions.<\/p>\n

The Court also concluded that three of the proposed class members did not use the same price negotiation strategy as Plaintiffs; therefore, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate typicality. Finally, the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to meet the ascertainability requirement because Plaintiffs failed to adequately define the contract purchases that were to be excluded from the proposed class.<\/p>\n

Implications Of The Ruling<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s ruling is important for antitrust class action defendants accused of price-fixing. The decision highlights the difficulties of earning class certification in antitrust cases where putative class members may not have always paid supracompetitive prices, in particular in markets characterized by complex pricing methodologies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean P. McConnell Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On December 28, 2023, Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied\u00a0a motion by Plaintiffs \u2013 purchasers of caustic soda \u2013 for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) in Miami Products & Chemical Co., et … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “New York Federal Court Denies Class Certification To Chemical Purchasers In Price-Fixing Antitrust Case”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[99],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antitrust-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1040"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}