Loeb Industries, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-3230.,No. 00-3979.,No. 01-3229.,No. 01-1148.,No. 01-3485.,00-3979.,01-1148.,01-3229.,01-3230.,01-3485.
• Citation: 306 F.3d 469
• Parties: LOEB INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Los Angeles Scrap Iron & Metal Corporation, and Metal Prep Company, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUMITOMO CORPORATION and Global Minerals and Metals Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Loeb Industries, Incorporated, Los Angeles Scrap Iron & Metal Corporation, and Metal Prep Company, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> Defendants-Appellees. Ocean View Capital, Incorporated, formerly known as Triangle Wire & Cable, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sumitomo Corporation of America, Sumitomo Corporation, Global Minerals and Metals Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Viacom, Incorporated, as successor by merger to CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Emerson Electric Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Global Minerals and Metals Corporation and Credit Lyonnais Rouse, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

306 F.3d 469

LOEB INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Los Angeles Scrap Iron & Metal Corporation, and Metal Prep Company, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUMITOMO CORPORATION and Global Minerals and Metals Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Loeb Industries, Incorporated, Los Angeles Scrap Iron & Metal Corporation, and Metal Prep Company, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,^* Defendants-Appellees.

Ocean View Capital, Incorporated, formerly known as Triangle Wire & Cable, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sumitomo Corporation of America, Sumitomo Corporation, Global Minerals and Metals Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Viacom, Incorporated, as successor by merger to CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Emerson Electric Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Global Minerals and Metals Corporation and Credit Lyonnais Rouse, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-3979.

No. 01-1148.

No. 01-3229.

No. 01-3230.

No. 01-3485.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued September 5, 2001.

Submitted September 13, 2001^**.

Argued May 16, 2002.

Decided September 20, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ben Barnow, Barnow & Goldberg, Chicago, IL, David H. Weinstein (submitted), Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman, Philadelphia, PA, William R. Steinmetz, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, Milwaukee, WI, for Loeb Industries, Inc., Los Angeles Scrap Iron & Metal Corp. and Metal Prep Co., Inc.

Sanford P. Dumain (submitted), Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, New York City, for Ocean View Capital, Inc.

Reginald R. Smith (submitted), Houston, TX, for Viacom, Inc. and Emerson Elec. Co.

David R. Cross (submitted), Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, WI, for Sumitomo Corp.

H. Peter Haveles, Jr. (submitted), Bruce Birenboim (submitted), Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City, for Global Minerals and Metals Corp.

James H. R. Windels (submitted), Sarah Stasford (submitted), Davis, Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for J.P. Morgan & Co. Inc. and Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York.

Celia Goldwag Barenholtz (submitted), Kronish, Lieb, Weiner & Hellman, New York City, for Sumitomo Corp. of America and Sumitomo Corp.

Steven Wolowitz (submitted), Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, New York City, for Credit Lyonnais Rouse, Ltd.

Albert A. Foer, American Antitrust Institute, Washington, DC, John D. Bray, Washington, DC, Joseph P. Bauer, Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, IN, Amicus Curiae American Antitrust Institute, Viacom, Inc., Emerson Elec. Co. and General Elec.

Before CUDAHY, ROVNER, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

These cases, which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion, all arise out of an alleged conspiracy in the 1990s to fix the price of copper futures at artificially high levels on the international exchange markets. This market manipulation necessarily and directly inflated the price of the products purchased by the plaintiffs, buyers of copper cathode, copper rod, and scrap copper, who have sued for violations of the Sherman Act, RICO, and various state laws. The district court dismissed the claims of each of the plaintiffs either on the ground that their claims were barred by the indirect purchaser rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977), or on the ground that their injuries were too remote and speculative under Associated General Contractors of Cal. Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983) (AGC). We find that Illinois Brick presents no obstacle to any of the plaintiffs' claims but that the claims of the scrap copper dealers are precluded under AGC. On the other hand, we conclude that the purchasers of copper cathode and rod have suffered a direct and independent injury and are the best situated participants in the physical copper market to bring a lawsuit. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part for further proceedings.

I

A. The Parties

The production of copper entails a complicated four-step process. First, copper producers extract ore from a copper mine and crush or mill it into a gravel-like substance known as concentrate. Second, smelters separate out the nonferrous metals in the concentrate, producing one-meter square plates of anode, which are approximately 90% copper. Next, the anode is refined electrolytically to create sheets of cathode. Finally, the cathode is fed into a furnace at a mill and melted into rod or wire. In the course of manufacturing cathode and rod, scrap copper is also produced, and it too can be sold into the market.

The plaintiffs in these actions are large companies occupying various positions along the copper production chain. The plaintiffs in No. 01-3485, Viacom, Incorporated (a successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and Emerson Electric Company, turn copper cathode into wire for resale to merchants. Each purchased hundreds of millions of pounds of cathode during the relevant time period from integrated producers, who smelt and refine copper from their own mines into cathode.

Ocean View Capital is the plaintiff in Nos. 01-3229 and 01-3230. Until it went out of business in 1996, it was a large Rhode Island-based manufacturer of copper wire and cable. Unlike Viacom and Emerson, Ocean View normally did not purchase cathode; instead, it bought copper that had already been transformed into rod. Some of this rod was manufactured by integrated producers. Ocean View also contracted frequently with semi-fabricators, which own and operate rod mills but do not own mines, concentrators, smelters, or refineries. Instead, semi-fabricators typically purchase cathode from producers or copper traders and fabricate the cathode into rod. On some occasions, Ocean View varied this process by entering into tolling agreements with its semi-fabricators under which it purchased its own cathode from producers or traders and then paid the semi-fabricator to convert it into usable rod.

The plaintiffs in Loeb Industries v. Sumitomo, Nos. 00-3979 and 01-1148, are three scrap metal dealers (to whom we refer as the "Scrap Dealers"). Each purchases only scrap copper; none buys either cathode or rod. The scrap is purchased from a variety of sources, including integrated producers and wire manufacturers, and then repackaged and resold.

B. The Copper Market

Despite the fact that copper is sold in a variety of physical forms, the summary judgment record (viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs) indicates that the pricing of copper is consistent throughout the industry. Like many other commodities, copper is traded on commodities exchanges through warrants and futures contracts. Most copper futures are traded on either the London Metals Exchange (LME) or the Commodities Exchange Division of the New York Mercantile Exchange (known familiarly as the "Comex"). When futures contracts mature, they must either be closed out by an offsetting trade or satisfied by deliveries of the underlying physical goods. If a futures trader is short, she must satisfy her obligation under the futures contract by immediately delivering physical copper cathode to an LME or Comex warehouse; if a trader is long, she may similarly call in physical copper cathode from a warehouse. Because of this, the price of physical copper, including cathode, rod, and scrap copper, is directly linked to the LME and Comex price for copper futures, and dealers in all forms of physical copper quote prices based on rigid formulas related to copper cathode futures.

While sales between six plaintiffs and numerous other copper industry participants are involved, we will illustrate this linkage by discussing only the relationship between one of the plaintiffs, Viacom, and the largest integrated producer, Asarco. Viacom entered into yearly supply contracts with Asarco, copies of which are included in the record. In these contracts, the price Viacom paid Asarco for cathode was made up of two components. First, the base price was set by "the arithmetic average of the COMEX first position settlements for high-grade copper during the calendar month of scheduled shipment." From 1990 to 1996, this price fluctuated from about 75¢/lb to over $1.40/lb. Added to the base price was a "cathode premium" that was set on a monthly or quarterly basis. Asarco's premium fluctuated over the relevant time period from 2.75¢/lb to 3.5¢/lb. The record also indicates that when the base price of copper increased, the premium tended to increase as well.

Viacom bought over half a billion pounds of cathode from Asarco. Asarco manufactured most of this cathode, but some had been purchased for resale from other merchants to make up for production shortfalls. Because records of these purchases were not kept, it is impossible to tell whether any particular pound of cathode sold to Viacom was manufactured by Asarco or merely purchased for resale. The defendants concede, however, that some of the cathode in question was being sold into the market for the first time. While there is some dispute as to the exact numbers, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Viacom, Asarco sold it 510 million pounds of cathode over the relevant period. During this same time frame, Asarco refined 6.4 billion pounds of cathode and purchased 153 million pounds from third parties. Therefore, even if one assumed that every scrap of Asarco's previously sold cathode was shipped to Viacom (instead of to one of its many other customers), Viacom still purchased 357 million pounds of never-before-purchased cathode. Viacom seeks damages in this suit only for cathode that was sold to it for the first time by its integrated producers.

Asarco also purchased raw materials, such as concentrate and anode, to supplement its own production and keep its smelters and refineries...