In re Potash Antitrust Litigation
| Citation | 667 F.Supp.2d 907 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08 C 6910.,MDL No. 1996.,08 C 6910. |
| Parties | In re POTASH ANTITRUST LITIGATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Anna M. Horning Nygren, Heidi M. Silton, Richard A. Lockridge, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Bruce L. Simon, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny, LLP, San Francisco CA, Steven Alan Hart, Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, John Reid Malkinson, Malkinson & Halpern, P.C., Chicago, IL, Christopher King Wilson, Daniel D. Owen, Patrick John Brady, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kansas City, MO, Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Bernard Persky, William Reiss, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, Detroit, MI, Daniel A. Bushell, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Berman DeValerio, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, M. Stephen Dampier, Vickers, Riis, Murray and Curran, LLC, Mobile, AL, Howard J. Sedran, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA, Michael Jerry Freed, Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Bannockburn, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Alan S. Madans, John David Silk, Robin Korman Powers, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP, Britt Marie Miller, Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel E. Reidy, James R. Daly, Michael Sennett, Thomas F. Gardner, Brian Joseph Murray, Paula Sue Quist, Jones Day, Elizabeth M. Bradshaw, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Thomas E. Dutton, Greenberg Traurig, Paul T. Olszowka, Michael Lee McCluggage, Paul T. Olszowka, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP, Duane M. Kelley, Winston & Strawn LLP, Lori Ann Fanning, Marvin Alan Miller, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Timothy G. Martin, Cooney & Conway, Chicago, IL, J. Michael Hennigan, Lauren A. Smith, Peter Jay Most, Robert L. Palmer, Donald F. Woods, Jr., Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, Los Angeles, CA, Mark W. Ryan, Richard J. Favretto, Mayer, Brown & Platt, David A. Baron, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Maria Kostytska Scala, Michael Thomas Dyson, Thomas Matthew Buchanan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Michael G. McLellan, Richard M. Volin, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Washington, DC, A. Paul Victor, Eamon O'Kelly, James F. Lerner, Jason D. Clark, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Jack Edward Pace, III, John Douglas Rue, Mary Elaine Johnston, Robert A. Milne, Milana Salzman, White & Case LLP, Jay L. Himes, William Reiss, Bernard Persky, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Gregory J. Casas, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Houston, TX, JSC International Potash, Co., JSC Silvinit, JSC Uralkali, Rue Pa Belarusian Potash, Co., Rue Pa Belaruskali, Russia, Bruce L. Simon, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Christopher L. Schnieders, Eric D. Barton, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Kansas City, MO, Eugene A. Spector, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Jay S. Cohen, Spector Roseman & Kodroff, Philadelphia, NJ, for Defendants.
This Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") consists of two class actions. In the first action, Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Minn-Chem., Inc., Shannon D. Flinn, Thomasville Feed & Seed, Inc., and Westside Forestry Services, Inc. (collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs") bring suit on behalf of themselves and all others who purchased potash products in the United States directly from Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and PCS Sales (USA), Inc. ("PCS"),1 Mosaic Company and Mosaic Crop Nutrition LLC ("Mosaic"),2 Agrium Inc. and Agrium U.S. Inc. ("Agrium"),3 JSC Uralkali ("Uralkali"),4 RUE PA Belaruskali ("Belaruskali"),5 JSC Silvinit ("Silvinit"),6 JSC Belarusian Potash Company and BPC Chicago LLC ("BPC Chicago") (collectively, "BPC"),7 and JSC International Potash Company ("IPC")8 (collectively, "Defendants"). (R. 142, Am. Direct Compl.) In the second action, Kevin Gillespie ("Gillespie"), Gordon Tillman ("Tillman"), Feyh Farms Company ("Feyh Farms"), William H. Coaker, Jr. ("Coaker"), and David Baier ("Baier") (collectively, the "Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs") bring suit on behalf of themselves and all others who purchased potash products in the United States indirectly from Defendants.9 (R. 50, Indirect Compl.) Both the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that Defendants conspired to fix the price of potash in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act ("Sherman Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 1, and various state laws. (R. 142, Am. Direct Compl.; R. 50, Indirect Compl.)
Currently before the Court are eight motions to dismiss the Direct and Indirect Complaints. ( ); R. 112 ( ); R. 126 ( ); R. 127 ( ); R. 130 For the reasons stated below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Potash refers to mineral and chemical salts that contain potassium and a multitude of other elements in various combinations that are mined from naturally occurring ore deposits. Principally, potash is used as an agricultural fertilizer but is also used in the production of glass, ceramics, soaps, and animal feed supplements. It is a homogeneous product; potash supplied by one producer is interchangeable with another producer's supply. (Id. ¶ 53.) As a result, buyers make purchase decisions based largely, if not entirely, on price. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that the world's potash reserves are confined to a relatively few areas, with over half of the capacity located in just two regions—Canada and the former Soviet Union ( Russia and Belarus). Further, Plaintiffs allege that the potash industry has been dominated by few companies that market, sell, and distribute potash. (Id. ¶ 52.) As of 2008, Plaintiffs allege that PCS, Mosaic, Agrium, Uralkali, Belaruskali, and Silvinit produced approximately 71% of the world's potash. Plaintiffs allege that PCS, Mosaic, Agrium, and BPC are responsible for the vast majority of potash sales in the United States. (Id. ¶ 52.)
Plaintiffs allege that prices for potash are set according to benchmarks established by Defendants based on sales to buyers in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere. (id.) Plaintiffs allege that during the 1990's there was an increase in the supply of potash in the market, resulting in substantial price declines and a corresponding decrease in the profits of potash producers around the world. (Id. ¶ 3.) Beginning in mid-2003, however, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "instituted a number of price increases resulting in an unprecedented rise in potash prices." (Id. ¶¶ 112-113.) Plaintiffs' claim that by 2008, potash prices had increased at least 600%. (Id. ¶ 113.) Plaintiffs allege that this price increase is not commensurate with changes in the cost of potash production or other input costs and cannot be explained by demand factors. (Id. ¶¶ 129-130.) Further, Plaintiffs claim that although demand for potash and other fertilizers began to decline in 2008, prices for potash have remained high and have continued to increase while other fertilizer prices have declined. Plaintiffs allege that based on World Bank statistics, average fertilizer price indices rose from 1.0 to 2.2 and then fell back to 1.0 in 2008, while potash price indices started 2008 at 1.0 and rose to 3.5 by the end of the year. (Id.) Plaintiffs claim that these price increases were a result of Defendants "conspir[ing] and combin[ing] to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price" at which potash was sold in order to "increase profitability." Plaintiffs allege that PCS posted first quarter 2008 income figures that were triple the year-earlier figure and that Mosaic's earnings for first quarter 2008 were up more than 10-fold from a year earlier.
Plaintiffs claim that the potash market makes a "supply restriction cartel attractive to producers." Plaintiffs allege that because the cost of potash is a relatively small part of total crop production costs and there are no ready, cost-effective substitutes for the product, demand for potash is elastic; as potash prices increase, buyers tend to purchase at the higher price, rather than decrease the amount of their purchases. Plaintiffs further claim that the majority of production costs for potash producers are variable, giving producers less incentive to operate facilities at full capacity. Plaintiffs argue that this allows a potash cartel to boost prices artificially with greater success than it would have if fixed costs were the largest component of production. (Id.) Further, Plaintiffs allege that the potash industry has very high barriers to entry. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiffs estimate that a single new mine requires approximately $2.5 billion or more in upfront costs, five to seven years of development time, and additional outlays for associated roads and other infrastructure. (Id.) Plaintiffs claim that these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litig.
...9, 2013) ; In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1416259, at *2–3 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 1, 2010) ; In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F.Supp.2d 907, 948–49 (N.D.Ill.2009) ; Munson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2008 WL 5381866, at *9 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 17, 2008).In A & M, the Michigan......
-
Alarm Detection Sys., Inc. v. Orland Fire Prot. Dist.
...re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig. , 2015 WL 3988488, at *21 (N.D.Ill. June 29, 2015) ; In re Potash Antitrust Litig. , 667 F.Supp.2d 907, 948–49 (N.D.Ill.2009). Although Illinois law requires "some entitlement" to the benefit at issue, Illinois law also permits that bene......
-
In re HSBC Bank
...of a class unless at least one named plaintiff has suffered the injury that gives rise to that claim.”); In Re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F.Supp.2d 907, 924 (N.D.Ill.2009) (dismissing claims under the laws of states where the plaintiffs were not residents for lack of standing because the ......
-
In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-864
...must be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, see, e.g. , DFA I , 2013 WL 4506000, at *7-8 (citing In re Potash Antitrust Litig. , 667 F.Supp.2d 907, 922 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ); In re Plasma–Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust Litig. , 2012 WL 39766, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2012), the......
-
Practical Implications Of 7th Circuit's Recent 'Minn-Chem' Decision
...the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, rejecting arguments that the FTAIA barred the claims. In re Potash Antitrust Litig ., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Recognizing that this issue was close, the district court certified its decision to a three-judge court of appeals The......
-
Seventh Circuit Takes Broad View Of FTAIA
...restricts its ability to investigate and prosecute international cartels. Footnotes 1 15 U.S.C. § 6a 2 In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907, 913 (N.D. Ill. 2009) 3 Id. at 915 4 Id. at 915-16 5 Id. at 915 6 Id. at 927 7 Id. 8 Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., 657 F.3d 650, 661 (7......
-
Appendix A. Survey Of State Indirect Purchaser Jurisprudence and Legislation
...were sufficient to establish standing under the AGC test in order to overcome motions to dismiss); In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907, 945-46 (N.D. Ill. 2009). 138. KAN. STAT. ANN § 50-161(b). 139. In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d at 944. 140 . In re Dynamic Ra......
-
Table of cases
...F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1989), 426 Potash Antitrust Litig., In re,161 F.R.D. 411 (D. Minn. 1995), 261, 263 Potash Antitrust Litig., In re,667 F. Supp. 2d 907 n.26 (N.D. Ill. 2009), vacated and remanded sub nom. Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, 657 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2011) and aff’d 683 F.3d 845 (7th C......
-
Iowa. Practice Text
...Id. at 196 (emphasis in original). 205. 459 U.S. 519 (1983). 206. 734 N.W.2d at 198-99. See also In re Potash Antitrust Litigation, 667 F. Supp. 2d 907, 945-46 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing Southard and applying the Associated General Contractors test in dismissing claims asserted under the Iowa......
-
Jurisdiction and Choice of law Issues in the Indirect Purchaser action
...connection exists between that forum and a conspiracy entered into by that defendant”). 42 . In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907, 937 n.26 (N.D. Ill. 2009), vacated and remanded sub nom. Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, 657 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2011) and aff’d 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. ......