|
|
|
Operating
for over a decade, BERRY LAW PLLC has a
nationwide practice specializing in commercial and technology litigation,
including complex antitrust matters. Its matters have had global
reach and involved multinational corporations directed not only from
the United States, but also England, Holland, Germany, Russia and Japan.
|
District Court Denies California Insurers’
Attempt to Exclude Three
Class Experts and Orders Additional Discovery on
Class Antitrust Issues |
December 2011 - Perez, et
al. v. State Farm, et al., Dkt. No.
06-01962 (JW)(PSG) (N.D. Ca.), alleges an
antitrust conspiracy under California state law
by State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.,
Allstate Indemnity Co., GEICO General Insurance
Co., and Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (a) to use
wherever possible inferior imitation and salvage
parts to repair California automobiles; and (b)
not to pass through to their insureds the
savings from use of these less expensive and
often inferior parts.
The Honorable Chief Judge James Ware on December
7, 2011 denied Defendants’ Motions to Exclude
the Plaintiffs’ economic, actuarial and repair
parts experts. In addition, the Court ordered
three of the Defendants, which had withheld
premium data necessary to demonstrate the
availability of classwide proof of antitrust
injury, to produce the data a sufficient time
before the class hearing in April 2012 to permit
econometric analysis by Dr. Roger Noll,
Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. |
District Court Rejects SanDisk Corporation’s
Motion to Deny
Antitrust Standing to Its Flash Memory
Purchasers |
February 2011 - Ritz Camera
& Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Dkt.
No. 5:10-cv-02787-JF (N.D. Ca.), alleges that
the SanDisk Corporation has monopolized the
relevant market for NAND flash memory and, as a
consequence, has overcharged substantially its
direct-purchaser customers from 2006 to the
present.
In part, the action includes a Walker
Process monopolization allegation claiming
that SanDisk’s “crown jewel” flash-memory
patents were obtained by fraud on the United
States Patent Office. SanDisk has argued that
these purchasers do not have standing to pursue
their antitrust claims.
On February 24, 2011, the Honorable Jeremy Fogel
rejected SanDisk’s contention, finding that
“[t]he Supreme Court’s decision in Walker
Process places no limitation on the class
of plaintiffs eligible to bring a Walker
Process claim, . . .” Opinion and Order at
6 (Feb. 24, 2011).
Some weeks ago SanDisk filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Plaintiff Ritz Camera contends that the Federal
Circuit does not have jurisdiction over this
antitrust matter and that any such petition
should be directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (and should be denied).
|
|
Morelock Verdict Ranked As One of Top 100 in
2008 |
|
March,
2009 - BERRY LAW PLLC’s verdict in
April 2008 for 440 businesses against
Weyerhaeuser Company has been ranked by the
National Law Journal among the top 25 U.S.
verdicts of 2008 (National Law Journal, March
2009). This was the only antitrust verdict among
the top 50 verdicts.
After a nine-day trial and two days of
deliberation, the jury found that Weyerhaeuser
had monopolized the market for finished alder
lumber and awarded the business class nearly $26
million. After trebling, judgment was entered
for nearly $84 million.
|
|
|
|
Weyerhaeuser Company Hit with Jury Verdict
Resulting in $84 Million in Damages in
Monopolization Matter Brought on by Business
Class |
|
Monday, April 28,
2008 - In a rare antitrust, class
damage action tried to a verdict, a jury this
afternoon in Portland, Oregon awarded just under
$28 million in price-overcharge damages against
the Weyerhaeuser Company.
When the verdict was entered
as a judgment by the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon, it was
automatically tripled – or trebled – under the
federal Sherman Act to $84 million.
The damages were shared
by approximately 450 wood product manufacturers
and distributors purchasing finished alder
lumber directly from the Weyerhaeuser Northwest
Hardwoods Division between the end of April 2000 and
the end of 2006.
The nine-person jury found
that Weyerhaeuser had monopolized the market for
the sale of finished alder lumber under
the federal Sherman Act and charged the wood
product manufacturers and distributors monopoly
prices.
The
business class was represented by Morelock
Enterprises Inc. and its principal, Scott Morelock, now of Morewood Products Inc. Morelock and Morewood are small, family-run wood
shops that have operated in southern Oregon in
the town of Bend.
The
Morelock Enterprises action had been pending for
four years, and this jury verdict is the
culmination of a series of monopolization
actions brought against Weyerhaeuser.
Prior actions were brought by Weyerhaeuser’s
alder lumber competitors, whose primary claim
was that Weyerhaeuser had monopolized the alder sawlogs required by its lumber competitors to
compete in the downstream lumber market.
|
|
According to the class’ trial
counsel, Stephen Berry,
“This class action is also
somewhat unusual because it went to a jury
verdict and the class is composed of United
States businesses serving as market middlemen
manufacturers of alder products or distributors,
rather than consumers or end users of a product.
To reach this verdict, the jury must have found
that Weyerhaeuser suppressed alder lumber
competition and competitors, and maintained a
monopoly in the alder lumber market through
anticompetitive conduct. The businesses claimed
that Weyerhaeuser had monopolized the sale of
alder lumber for over a decade by –
in part – denying them the critical input
for the milling of alder lumber and alder sawlogs,
as well as by a series of competitor
acquisitions dramatically reducing price
competition. It is uncertain which of
these claims were credited by the jury in
reaching its verdict.
The class showed that
Weyerhaeuser systematically charged wood product
manufacturers and alder distributors monopoly
prices for at least six years. Sworn
testimony was received against Weyerhaeuser from
many of its alder lumber competitors, several of
which have failed, and some of
Weyerhaeuser’s major alder lumber purchasers.”
The case is captioned
Morelock Enterprises
Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co,
Civil No. 3:04-cv-00583-PA in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon.
|
|
Classes
Largely Comprised of Businesses to Receive $1.1
Billion from Microsoft in the Largest Settlement
in California History |
|
July 31, 2006 -
BERRY LAW PLLC in 1999 brought the first private
action in the country for damages against
Microsoft under California’s unfair competition
and antitrust laws, alleging that Microsoft
monopolized the markets in California for
operating system and office suite software. The
Firm represented classes of indirect purchasers
of such software in the California State courts.
The classes alleged they were overcharged by
more than $3 billion.
The action was designated the lead case in the
consolidated California class actions against
Microsoft, and the Firm was selected to serve on
the Executive Committee established by the Court
to manage the litigation.
In
January 2003, less than one month before trial,
Microsoft agreed to settle this matter by
giving as many as 13 million California
businesses and consumers (who had purchased
Microsoft operating systems and application
software) a total of $1.1 billion in vouchers
which could be used to buy desktop computer
hardware or software from any vendor, including
Microsoft’s rivals.
It
is estimated that 80% of the class members,
California businesses shared in the recovery, the largest settlement
in California history. Most of any unclaimed settlement
funds was paid to the California Department
of Education for use in purchasing software,
hardware, training, or service from the vendor
of its choice to benefit poor schools in the
State.
The settlement was implemented in the Fall
of 2006. |
| |
|
|
Businesses to Receive Approximately $40 Million
in Overcharges From 3M |
|
July 31, 2006 -
BERRY
LAW PLLC represented a class of businesses that
purchased transparent tape from 3M Company in an
action alleging that 3M had unlawfully
maintained a monopoly over the sale of such tape
in the United States.
In
the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the Firm obtained a
favorable class certification ruling, and
sponsored an expert damage report estimating
that 3M had overcharged the businesses in the
class in excess of $90 million.
Settlement of the matter was reached less
than thirty days before trial was to begin.
The businesses in the class received
approximately $40 million in damages when the
settlement was finally approved by the Court.
|
|
|
|
|
