Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC
| Decision Date | 27 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | 16-4305,August Term, 2017,Docket Nos. 16-4230,16-4233,16-4243,16-4235,16-4308 |
| Citation | 936 F.3d 86 |
| Parties | EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA Corp., AGFA Graphics NV, Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc., Mag Instrument Inc., Claridge Products and Equipment, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Custom Aluminum Products Inc., Ampal Inc., Extruded Aluminum Corp., Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, Southwire Co., LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HENRY BATH LLC, Metro International Trade Services, LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs International, JPMorgan Securities PLC, Glencore LTD., Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Pacorini Metals Vlissingen B.V., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Glencore International AG, Glencore AG, J. Aron & Co. LLC, Mitsi Holdings LLC, Access World (USA) LLC, Henry Bath & Son Limited, Defendants-Appellees, Glencore Xstrata PLC, GS Power Holdings LLC, MCEPF Metro I, Incorporated, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Pacorini Metals AG, London Metal Exchange Limited, London Metal Exchange Limited, John Does 1–10, Does 1–10, Inclusive, Unidentified Parties, John Does 1–50, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Patrick J. Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA (Steven F. Hubachek, Carmen A. Medici, on the brief), for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Derek Brandt, Brandt Law LLC, Edwardsville, IL (Walter W. Noss, Stephanie A. Hackett, Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, San Diego, CA, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants Eastman Kodak Co., AGFA Corp., AGFA Graphics NV, Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. and Mag Instrument Inc.
Robert J. Palmersheim, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Chicago, IL (David E. Koropp, Anand C. Mathew, Matthew G. Mrkonic, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants Reynolds Consumer Products LLC and Southwire Co. LLC.
Richard C. Pepperman II, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY (Suhana S. Han, William H. Wagener, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY; John M. Nannes, John H. Lyons, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C.; Robert D. Wick, Henry Liu, John Playforth, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C.; Eliot Lauer, Jacques Semmelman, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEVAL, LYNCH, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs in three consolidated actions appeal from the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Katherine B. Forrest, J. ) dismissing their complaints. The complaints allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, through a conspiracy to inflate prices in the primary aluminum market. The term "primary aluminum" is used in the industry to describe aluminum in the form produced at a smelter or primary aluminum plant, by original producers, as distinguished from "secondary aluminum," which is reconstituted aluminum scrap.
The plaintiffs are manufacturers that use primary aluminum in the fabrication of their products. The plaintiffs allege that they purchased primary aluminum for their needs mainly through long-term supply contracts with aluminum producers. In accordance with industry standards, the purchase prices provided in their long-term supply contracts included as a price element the Platts Midwest Premium (hereinafter the "Midwest Premium"), a figure which, as explained below, is based on the costs associated with delivery of aluminum.
The plaintiffs in the three actions fall into three categories. In the district court, these three categories were termed "Individual Plaintiffs" ("IPs"), "First Level Purchasers" ("FLPs"), and Reynolds Consumer Products LLC and Southwire Company, LLC ("Reynolds/Southwire"). The IPs are Eastman Kodak Company, Agfa Corporation, Agfa Graphics NV, Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A. Inc., and Mag Instrument Incorporated. The FLPs are Custom Aluminum Products Incorporated, Incorporated, Ampal Incorporated, Extruded Aluminum Corporation, and Claridge Products and Equipment, Inc. While we will at times use the designations "FLP," "IP," and "Reynolds/Southwire" to make procedural distinctions between the three sets of plaintiffs, we perceive no significant substantive difference between their claims for purposes of their contentions in this appeal seeking relief from the grant of summary judgment. All of them purchased primary aluminum at prices that included the Midwest Premium, and all were first in line to pay prices affected by the defendants' alleged inflation of the Midwest Premium. See Brief of Appellant AGFA Corporation at 6; Fujifilm Amended Complaint ¶ 32; IPs' Joint Amended Complaint ¶¶ 18, 31–47; Brief of Appellant Ampal at 8; FLPs' Complaint ¶¶ 17, 32–40; Reynolds and Southwire Brief at 10–12; Complaint of Reynolds/Southwire ¶¶ 1–5.
There are two categories of defendants: Financial Defendants and Warehousing Defendants. The Financial Defendants are J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs & Co., and Glencore Ltd. Each of them trades in primary aluminum and in primary aluminum derivatives, including futures contracts that are linked to the price of primary aluminum on the London Metals Exchange ("LME"), the world's largest non-ferrous metals market. During the relevant time, approximately from 2011 to 2014, each is alleged to have sold primary aluminum in transactions that included the Midwest Premium as an element of the sale price. Each also (directly or indirectly) owned one of the Warehousing Defendants, having purchased them in 2010 during an aluminum glut in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
The Warehousing Defendants are Henry Bath & Son Ltd., Metro International Trade Services, LLC, and Pacorini Metals USA, LLC. Each of them owns and operates aluminum warehouses certified by the LME, and each of them was owned during the relevant time by one of the Financial Defendants—Henry Bath by J.P. Morgan, Metro by Goldman Sachs, and Pacorini by Glencore.
The gist of the allegations is that the Financial Defendants, having acquired large positions in primary aluminum at low prices during the economic downturn following the 2008 market collapse in anticipation of future price increases, conspired with each other and with the Warehousing Defendants to inflate artificially the prices they would realize in the sale of these positions by manipulating the Midwest Premium.
The plaintiffs allegedly were harmed by the defendants' manipulation of the Midwest Premium because the manipulation required the plaintiffs to pay artificially inflated prices in their purchases pursuant to their supply contracts with aluminum producers.
The complaints of these three plaintiff groups were part of a larger group of related actions that were originally filed in various district courts throughout the country and were consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation before Judge Forrest in the Southern District of New York. The other consolidated actions, brought by groups identified as Commercial End Users and Consumer End Users, also asserted liability based on the defendants' conspiratorial manipulation of the Midwest Premium. Those plaintiffs, however, purchased aluminum otherwise than in the primary aluminum market in which plaintiffs in this case claim to have suffered injury. This court later concluded that those plaintiffs "disavow[ed] participation in any of the markets in which the defendants operate." In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig. (Aluminum III ), 833 F.3d 151, 161 (2d Cir. 2016).
The district court had earlier dismissed the actions of the Commercial End Users and Consumer End Users on the ground that they were inefficient enforcers who did not satisfy the requirements for antitrust standing. The court noted that "[t]here will always be others who are more directly injured ...." In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig. (Aluminum I ), No. 13-md-2481 (KBF), 2014 WL 4277510, at *21, *39 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2014).1 The district court denied them leave to replead. In contrast, the district court granted the FLPs and IPs leave to amend their complaints, finding—at least at first—that their amended complaints stated claims for conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig. (Aluminum II ), 95 F. Supp. 3d 419, 439–40 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Meanwhile, the Commercial End Users and Consumer End Users appealed the district court's dismissal of their claims. This court, on that appeal, affirmed the dismissals, also for failure to show antitrust standing, but, as described below, based on an analysis that differed from the district court's rationale. Our court reasoned on appeal that those plaintiffs did not successfully allege antitrust injury because the injuries they alleged were in a different market from any market allegedly restrained by the defendants. Aluminum III , 833 F.3d at 161–62 ( ) (citing Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready , 457 U.S. 465, 484, 102 S.Ct. 2540, 73 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982) ).
On the basis of this court's Aluminum III ruling, and following a new joint motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the FLPs by all defendants, the district court then reconsidered the FLPs' claims.2 See Notice of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig. , No. 1:13-md-02481 ("MDL Docket"), (S.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 17, 2019), ECF No. 1049. It concluded that our Aluminum III decision compelled the grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the FLPs' claims.
In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig. (Aluminum IV ), No. 13-md-2481 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trisvan v. Burger King Corp.
...in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws' to sue in federal court." Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 936 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)); In re SSA Antitrust Bonds Litig., 420 F. Supp. 3d 219, 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("[T]he pr......
-
Sitts v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc.
...employs "a three-step process for determining whether a plaintiff has sufficiently alleged antitrust injury." Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC , 936 F.3d 86, 94 (2d Cir. 2019).First, the party asserting that it has been injured by an illegal anticompetitive practice must identify the pra......
-
Trisvan v. Regal Entm't Grp.
...in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws' to sue in federal court." Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 936 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)); In re SSA Antitrust Bonds Litig., 420 F. Supp. 3d 219, 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("[T]he pr......
-
Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. Co. of Am.
...it for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party." Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 936 F.3d 86, 98 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Pilkington has requested leave to amend. The Court will not grant it at this tim......