AMM - Kirk Maltais
New York 06/10/2016 - Remaining claims by aluminium buyers in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit have been dismissed by the court, according to an order filed Wednesday.
Judge Katherine B. Forrest determined in her filing with the US District Court for the southern district of New York Oct. 5. that claims made by buyer plaintiffs - including Agfa Corp., Agfa Graphics NV, Mag Instrument Inc., Eastman Kodak Co. and Fujifilm Manufacturing USA Inc. – were “unpersuasive,” and changes made to their theory of the case were made too late.
"The core of plaintiffs’ claims in the (third amended complaint) is the same as that which the Second Circuit considered in the indirect purchasers’ complaints: that defendants’ alleged shenanigans in connection with aluminum warehousing services caused a supply restraint that led to a higher Midwest premium," Forrest wrote in her opinion.
"The (complaint) contains a number of additional allegations as to how the anticompetitive conduct occurred, that is, who did what. But the core remains unchanged," she added.
Forrest’s order terminates the case against defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs International, Metro International Trade Services LLC, J. Aron & Co. and Mitsi Holdings LLC – as well as other actions, including a case brought by Reynolds Consumer Products LLC and Southwire Co. LLC over the summer.
Even with a big jump in the Midwest premium in 2014, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they had conspired in an anticompetitive fashion, Forrest said.
"While the FLPs have submitted a number of documents purportedly showing that defendants owned and traded in aluminum, there is no allegation or evidence in the record that defendants engaged in any anticompetitive conduct outside of the aluminum warehouse services market," Forrest said.
Forrest’s ruling effectively puts an end to the long-running series of lawsuits, which were filed in 2013.
"We are pleased by the court’s decision and rationale for dismissing the suit," a spokesman for Goldman Sachs told AMM via email.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately responded to AMM’s request for comment.