Galvanizers Company v. London Metal Exchange Limited

Background

Plaintiffs Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc.; Iowa Steel and Wire Co.; Southwestern Wire, Inc.; and Jasper Materials, Inc., acting for themselves and other settlement-class members, agreed to settle claims against Glencore Ltd. and Access World (USA) LLC, formerly Pacorini Metals USA, LLC. The settlement was set out in a July 6, 2021 Settlement Agreement and required the court’s approval.

The court had preliminarily approved the settlement on August 18, 2021. It ordered notice to the proposed settlement class, provided opportunities to object or exclude oneself, and scheduled a fairness hearing. The court held that hearing on February 16, 2022, to consider whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether the case should be dismissed with prejudice against the defendants.

Settlement Class and Notice

For settlement purposes, the court certified a class consisting of people and entities that purchased LME U.S. zinc and paid the Platts Zinc MW SHG Premium or a similar price premium in the United States from September 14, 2010, through February 11, 2016, from a primary zinc producer or a defendant. The order excluded the defendants, other defendants named in the operative complaint, their specified related persons and entities, and federal governmental entities.

The court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied for settlement purposes. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common legal or factual questions existed, that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical, and that the plaintiffs would adequately protect the class’s interests. It also found that common questions predominated and that a class action was superior to other available methods for resolving the case.

The court approved the designated settlement-class counsel and certified the plaintiffs as class representatives. It found that the notice and publication notice followed the preliminary-approval order, were the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and satisfied Rule 23, constitutional due process, and other applicable requirements.

Ruling

The court fully and finally approved the Settlement Agreement, including its settlement amount, releases, and dismissal provisions. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. In doing so, it considered the factors identified in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. and Rule 23(e)(2). The court stated that the settlement resulted from good-faith, arm’s-length negotiations by experienced antitrust class-action counsel; that the case involved serious contested legal and factual questions; that antitrust litigation was uncertain; and that an immediate monetary recovery could be preferable to continued litigation.

The court granted final approval of the plan for allocating settlement funds. It dismissed the action, all claims in it, and all released claims against released parties with prejudice. The parties were to bear their own costs except as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The judgment became binding on the defendants, plaintiffs, and settlement-class members, whether or not an individual class member submitted a claim or received a distribution.

The order required releasing parties to waive and release covered claims, barred them from prosecuting those claims, and required them not to sue or assist others in suing on those claims. It preserved any claims outside the scope of the released claims. The order also stated that the settlement was not an admission of liability, wrongdoing, or the validity or invalidity of any claim or defense.

The court retained continuing jurisdiction over implementation of the settlement, the settlement fund, distributions, fee and expense applications, service awards, and enforcement or interpretation of the Settlement Agreement. If the settlement were terminated or failed to become effective as specified in the agreement, the judgment and related releases could become void, and the parties could return to their prior positions under the agreement’s terms. The court directed immediate entry of the judgment as a final judgment under Rule 54(b).