In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation

Citation552 F.3d 305
Decision Date30 December 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-1689.,07-1689.
PartiesIn re: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Arkema Inc., Arkema France S.A., FMC Corp., Kemira Chemicals Canada, Inc., Kemira OYJ, Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Steven A. Kanner, Esquire, Freed Kanner London & Millen, Bannockburn, IL, for Appellees, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and EMCO Chemical Distributors, Inc.

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

At issue in this antitrust action are the standards a district court applies when deciding whether to certify a class. We will vacate the order certifying the class in this case and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In deciding whether to certify a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the district court must make whatever factual and legal inquiries are necessary and must consider all relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties. See Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 166, 167 (3d Cir.2001) (citing Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir.2001); Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.1 (1995)). In this appeal, we clarify three key aspects of class certification procedure. First, the decision to certify a class calls for findings by the court, not merely a "threshold showing" by a party, that each requirement of Rule 23 is met. Factual determinations supporting Rule 23 findings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, the court must resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits—including disputes touching on elements of the cause of action. Third, the court's obligation to consider all relevant evidence and arguments extends to expert testimony, whether offered by a party seeking class certification or by a party opposing it.

I.

Purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and related chemical products brought this antitrust conspiracy action against chemical manufacturers.1 An inorganic liquid, hydrogen peroxide is used most prominently as a bleach in the pulp and paper industry with smaller amounts appearing in chemicals and laundry products, environmental applications, textiles, and electronics. Hydrogen peroxide is available in solutions of different concentrations and grades depending on its intended use. Major concentrations are 35, 50, and 70 percent. The grades, roughly in order from least- to most-expensive, are: standard, food/cosmetic (which must meet FDA standards), electronic, and propulsion. All defendants sold the standard grade, but not all defendants sold all other grades. Defendants sold different amounts of each of the grades. Each grade has different supply and demand conditions because the grades are sold to end-users in a variety of industries with different economic characteristics. According to defendants, the different grades are not economic substitutes for each other, but plaintiffs disagree. Prices diverge dramatically among grades; electronic or propulsion grade can be as much as five times more expensive than standard grade.

The other two products at issue are sodium percarbonate and sodium perborate, together known as persalts, which are granular solids containing hydrogen peroxide used primarily as detergents. Among the defendants, only Solvay produced and sold sodium percarbonate in the United States during the class period. Solvay Chemicals, Degussa Corp., and FMC sold sodium perborate in the United States during the class period. Akzo, Arkema, and Kemira did not sell or produce sodium perborate in the United States during the class period.

After the United States Department of Justice and the European Commission began investigating possible violations of the antitrust laws in the hydrogen peroxide industry,2 several plaintiffs filed class action complaints against producers of hydrogen peroxide and persalts under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, alleging a conspiracy in restraint of trade violating § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all cognate federal actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which consolidated the cases. See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 374 F.Supp.2d 1345 (J.P.M.L.2005). The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during an eleven-year class period (January 1, 1994January 5, 2005) defendants (1) communicated about prices they would charge, (2) agreed to charge prices at certain levels, (3) exchanged information on prices and sales volume, (4) allocated markets and customers, (5) agreed to reduce production capacity, (6) monitored each other, and (7) sold hydrogen peroxide at agreed prices.

The District Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Following extensive discovery,3 plaintiffs moved to certify a class of direct purchasers of hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate, and sodium percarbonate, over an eleven-year class period. In support of class certification, plaintiffs offered the opinion of an economist. Defendants, opposing class certification, offered the opinion of a different economist. Defendants separately moved to exclude the opinion of plaintiffs' economist as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Concluding plaintiffs' expert's opinion was admissible and supported plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the District Court certified a class of direct purchasers of hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate, and sodium percarbonate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.Pa.2007). The District Court identified seven issues to be tried on a class-wide basis: (1) whether defendants and others engaged in a combination and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices; allocate customers and markets; or control and restrict output of hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate, and sodium percarbonate sold in the United States; (2) the identity of the participants in the alleged conspiracy; (3) the duration of the alleged conspiracy and the nature and character of defendants' acts performed in furtherance of it; (4) the effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of hydrogen peroxide and persalts during the class period; (5) whether the alleged conspiracy violated the Sherman Act; (6) whether the activities alleged in furtherance of the conspiracy or their effect on the prices of hydrogen peroxide and persalts during the class period injured named plaintiffs and the other members of the class; and (7) the proper means of calculating and distributing damages. The class was defined as:

All persons or entities, including state, local and municipal government entities (but excluding defendants, their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates as well as federal government entities) who purchased hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate, or sodium percarbonate in the United States, its territories, or possessions, or from a facility located in the United States, its territories, or possessions, directly from any of the defendants, or from any of their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or affiliates, at any time during the period from September 14, 1994 to January 5, 2005.

We granted defendants' petition for an interlocutory appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f).4

II.

Class certification is proper only "if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites" of Rule 23 are met.5 Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982); see Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291, 297 (3d Cir.2006); see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (Rule 23(b)(3) requirements demand a "close look"). "A class certification decision requires a thorough examination of the factual and legal allegations." Newton, 259 F.3d at 166.6

The trial court, well-positioned to decide which facts and legal arguments are most important to each Rule 23 requirement, possesses broad discretion to control proceedings and frame issues for consideration under Rule 23. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 630, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (recognizing that the decision on class certification may implicate "highly fact-based, complex,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
797 cases
  • In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 19 Marzo 2021
    ...Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). These requirements are known as "predominance" and "superiority," respectively. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig. , 552 F.3d 305, 310 (3d Cir. 2008). Additionally, when certification is sought under Rule 23(b)(3), the Third Circuit has found that a prerequis......
  • Ulrich v. Corbett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 28 Julio 2014
  • In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Nalaxone) Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 26 Septiembre 2019
    ...to resolve relevant disputes when necessary to determine whether a class certification requirement is met." In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 316 (3d Cir. 2008). "It may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification......
  • Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC, CIV 14-1044 JB\KBM
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 25 Septiembre 2018
    ...and many circuits have endorsed it. See Abbott v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 725 F.3d 803, 810 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 313 (3d Cir. 2008); Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. 2004). Because of the res judicata effect a cla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 firm's commentaries
  • Recent Trends In Class Action And Aggregate Litigation In The Life Sciences Industry
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 20 Diciembre 2013
    ...investigation into that problem was materially misleading"). In re Foundry Resins Antitrust Litig., 242 F.R.D. 393, 408 (S.D. Ohio 2007). 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. Id. at 323, 326. Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1435. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-417, 9......
  • U.S. Supreme Court To Dive Deeply Into Antitrust: Granting Certiorari In Two Antitrust Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 4 Julio 2012
    ...Footnotes 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 2 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (internal citations omitted). 3 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) 4 Behrend, 655 F.3d at 197, 200-204. 5 Id. at 206-07. 6 Id. at 222-25 (Jordan, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenti......
  • Wal-Mart v. Dukes Redux: The Future Of The Sprawling Class Action
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 9 Noviembre 2011
    ...certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule."). Id. at *7 and n.6. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 320 (3d Cir. 2009). See also Teamsters Local 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Bombardier Inc., 546 F.3d 196, 201-04 (2d Cir. See F.R.C.P. ......
  • A Year Later: Comcast’s Impact On Antitrust Class Actions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 16 Abril 2014
    ...The district court relied on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions in Comcast and In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008), in ruling that the damages models "present[ed] a viable method of calculating damages using common proof," and that they co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
62 books & journal articles
  • Matsushita at Thirty: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far in Favor of Summary Judgment?
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Journal No. 82-1, January 2018
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c). 241 Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 32 (2013). 242 Id. at 34. 243 In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 323 (3d Cir. 2008). 244 See Amgen v. Conn. Ret. Plans &Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013). 112 ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 82 from its d......
  • Commonly Used Experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2016 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...setting—such as economic evidence as to business operations or market transactions. In In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation , 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008), the court stated that expert opinion with respect to class certification, like any matter relevant to a Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 ......
  • Antitrust Class Certification Standards
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...321, 324 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)). 34. See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 163, 168 (E.D. Pa. 2007), rev’d on other grounds 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008); In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., 2006 WL 623591, at *2 (D. Me. 2006) (citing McCuin v. Sec’y of Hea......
  • Regulatory and Enforcement Framework
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Pharmaceutical Industry Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • 8 Diciembre 2018
    ...(7th Cir. 2001). 277. Gariety v. Grant Thornton LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 366 (4th Cir. 2004); see also In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 307 (3d Cir. 2009); In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 33 (2d Cir. 2006); Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT