This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(July 2015)
The De Beers diamonds antitrust class action sought to end an alleged 60-year conspiracy to fix the price of rough diamonds in the U.S. by the De Beers group of companies. The litigation includes several cases including Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., No. CGC-04-432954, which commenced on July 24, 2004, and Sullivan v. DB Investments, No. 04-cv-02819, and earlier related cases that commenced in 2001.
The complaints charged that De Beers had created a global cartel in the markets of rough and polished diamonds – with a market share that reached nearly as high as 90% – through aggressive management of supply and prices, and collusive agreements with competitors, suppliers, and distributors. This was a quintessential antitrust violation of the Sherman Act.[1]
Settlement agreementedit
In October 2005, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to settle the claims of all indirect purchasers nationwide, with Sullivan serving as the procedural vehicle for seeking court approval of the settlement, notice and claims administration. Working out the details took three years between Plaintiffs' Counsel and De Beers.[2] On April 14, 2008, the Court conducted a fairness hearing and on May 27, 2008, granted final approval to the settlement.[3]
The settlement provides $295 million to purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry, including $130 million to consumers. In addition, De Beers consented to a historic injunction that prohibits De Beers from monopolizing the world supply of rough diamonds and from fixing the price of polished diamonds. The injunction also requires De Beers to submit to the continuing jurisdiction of the United States District Court for enforcement of the injunction.[4] Commenting on the case, plaintiff's counsel Eric B. Fastiff of Lieff Cabraser stated that De Beers' offer to settle "showed that our strategy was correct. If you put litigation pressure and represent your client vigorously, eventually a guilty defendant will recognize that it needs to resolve its problems."[2]
On May 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the final petition for review. Pursuant to an Order of the Court, Initial Distribution checks were mailed to Authorized Reseller Claimants on August 31, 2012. The remaining proceeds of the Reseller Subclass Net Settlement Fund were distributed to Authorized Reseller Claimants on March 15, 2013. As of November 24, 2015, distribution of settlement funds has been completed and the case is now closed.
^Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary AG, No. CGC-04-432954, 2005 WL 1020868 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Apr. 15, 2005).
^ ab"Global diamond cartel is cut down to size," Special to the National Law Journal, Oct. 6, 2008.
^Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81146 (D.N.J., May 22, 2008).
^"Diamond rebates may be coming," The Chicago Tribune, January 22, 2008, p. 10.
October 31, 2023
beers, antitrust, litigation, this, article, needs, updated, please, help, update, this, article, reflect, recent, events, newly, available, information, july, 2015, beers, diamonds, antitrust, class, action, sought, alleged, year, conspiracy, price, rough, di. This article needs to be updated Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information July 2015 The De Beers diamonds antitrust class action sought to end an alleged 60 year conspiracy to fix the price of rough diamonds in the U S by the De Beers group of companies The litigation includes several cases including Hopkins v De Beers Centenary A G et al No CGC 04 432954 which commenced on July 24 2004 and Sullivan v DB Investments No 04 cv 02819 and earlier related cases that commenced in 2001 Contents 1 Allegations 2 Settlement agreement 3 See also 4 ReferencesAllegations editThe complaints charged that De Beers had created a global cartel in the markets of rough and polished diamonds with a market share that reached nearly as high as 90 through aggressive management of supply and prices and collusive agreements with competitors suppliers and distributors This was a quintessential antitrust violation of the Sherman Act 1 Settlement agreement editIn October 2005 the parties reached a preliminary agreement to settle the claims of all indirect purchasers nationwide with Sullivan serving as the procedural vehicle for seeking court approval of the settlement notice and claims administration Working out the details took three years between Plaintiffs Counsel and De Beers 2 On April 14 2008 the Court conducted a fairness hearing and on May 27 2008 granted final approval to the settlement 3 The settlement provides 295 million to purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry including 130 million to consumers In addition De Beers consented to a historic injunction that prohibits De Beers from monopolizing the world supply of rough diamonds and from fixing the price of polished diamonds The injunction also requires De Beers to submit to the continuing jurisdiction of the United States District Court for enforcement of the injunction 4 Commenting on the case plaintiff s counsel Eric B Fastiff of Lieff Cabraser stated that De Beers offer to settle showed that our strategy was correct If you put litigation pressure and represent your client vigorously eventually a guilty defendant will recognize that it needs to resolve its problems 2 On May 21 2012 the U S Supreme Court denied the final petition for review Pursuant to an Order of the Court Initial Distribution checks were mailed to Authorized Reseller Claimants on August 31 2012 The remaining proceeds of the Reseller Subclass Net Settlement Fund were distributed to Authorized Reseller Claimants on March 15 2013 As of November 24 2015 distribution of settlement funds has been completed and the case is now closed See also editList of class action lawsuitsReferences edit Hopkins v De Beers Centenary AG No CGC 04 432954 2005 WL 1020868 Cal Sup Ct Apr 15 2005 a b Global diamond cartel is cut down to size Special to the National Law Journal Oct 6 2008 Sullivan v DB Invs Inc 2008 U S Dist LEXIS 81146 D N J May 22 2008 Diamond rebates may be coming The Chicago Tribune January 22 2008 p 10 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title De Beers antitrust litigation amp oldid 1170462081, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
