In re: Zinc Antitrust Litigation

Background

The plaintiffs were Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc.; Iowa Steel and Wire Co.; Southwestern Wire, Inc.; and Jasper Materials, Inc. They acted on behalf of themselves and other settlement class members. The defendants covered by this judgment were Glencore Ltd. and Access World (USA) LLC, formerly identified in the opinion as Pacorini Metals USA, LLC. The parties agreed to settle all claims asserted against the defendants and specified related entities under a Settlement Agreement dated July 6, 2021.

The court had previously granted preliminary approval, ordered notice to the proposed settlement class, provided class members an opportunity to object or exclude themselves, and scheduled a hearing. On February 16, 2022, the court held the fairness hearing to consider final approval of the settlement and whether to dismiss the action against the defendants.

Settlement Class and Notice

The court finally certified the following class for settlement purposes only: persons 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 a primary zinc producer or a defendant from September 14, 2010, through February 11, 2016. The judgment excluded the defendants, other defendants named in the specified amended complaint, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal governmental entities.

The court found that the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied for settlement purposes. It found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that the plaintiffs alleged common questions, that their claims were typical, and that they and their counsel would adequately protect the class. It also found that common questions predominated and that a class action was superior to other available methods for resolving the action.

The court approved the named plaintiffs as class representatives and certified the listed attorneys as settlement class counsel. It found that the notice provided to class members was the best practicable notice under the circumstances, reasonably informed class members about the settlement, releases, allocation plan, fee request, expense request, objection rights, and right to appear at the fairness hearing, and satisfied Rule 23, constitutional due process, and other applicable requirements.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer fully and finally approved the Settlement Agreement, including its settlement amount, releases, and dismissal provisions. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. It relied on findings that the settlement was negotiated by experienced antitrust class-action counsel in good faith and at arm’s length; that the action presented serious and contested legal and factual questions; that immediate monetary recovery had value compared with continued litigation; that success in antitrust litigation was uncertain; and that class counsel’s assessment and the class members’ reaction supported approval.

The court granted final approval of the Plan of Allocation after finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate. It dismissed the action, all claims in it, and all released claims against the released parties with prejudice. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs except as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

The judgment provides that the settlement and judgment bind the defendants, plaintiffs, and settlement class members, whether or not a class member submits a claim form or receives a distribution. Upon the settlement’s effective date, releasing parties waive and release the covered claims and are enjoined from prosecuting those claims or assisting others in doing so. The judgment does not affect claims outside the scope of the released claims.

The judgment states that neither the settlement nor related acts or documents constitute an admission, concession, or presumption concerning liability, wrongdoing, the validity or weakness of claims or defenses, or the amount that could have been recovered at trial. The court retained continuing jurisdiction over settlement implementation, the settlement fund, distributions, fee and expense applications, service awards, and enforcement or interpretation of the Settlement Agreement. If the settlement terminates or its effective date does not occur, the judgment and related releases may become null and void as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and the parties may return to their prior positions as specified there.

Disposition

The court entered the judgment as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The opinion does not state the settlement amount, the amount of any fee or expense award, or the amount any class member would receive.