764 F. Supp. 2d 991
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- MDL consolidates 17 class actions alleging a Sherman Act §1 conspiracy among CSL Limited, CSL Behring, CSL Plasma, Baxter, and PPTA to restrain plasma-derivative protein therapies and maintain high prices.
- Plaintiffs filed Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 4, 2010; defendants moved to dismiss under Twombly; PPTA filed separate motion; CSL Limited sought lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Plasma therapies are FDA-regulated; only domestically collected/processed plasma can be sold in the U.S.; therapies are costly and largely uniform across suppliers.
- Market concentration: CSL and Baxter together hold about 60% of the market; Talecris, Grifols, and Octapharma are smaller players; industry shows significant vertical integration.
- Pre-conspiracy history includes 1997–1999 plant closures causing shortages, FDA monitoring of distribution, and PPTA/IPPIA coordination to monitor supply.
- Allegations assert a pattern of production cuts, facility closures, and covert meetings to keep supplies low and prices high, aided by PPTA data and signaling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CAC plausibly alleges a §1 conspiracy under Twombly | Plaintiffs allege interdependence with plus factors showing agreement. | Defendants argue only parallel conduct without plausible agreement. | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a conspiracy; Twombly standard satisfied; motion denied. |
| Whether PPTA's involvement supports a conspiracy claim | PPTA aided concealment and data manipulation in furtherance of the scheme. | PPTA's activities are not alleged to be unlawful or improperly joined. | PPTA's motion to dismiss denied; conspiracy plausibly includes PPTA. |
| Whether CSL Limited is subject to personal jurisdiction | CSL Limited directed activities at the U.S. market via acquisitions and coordination. | U.S. activities attributed to subsidiaries; asks for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | Specific jurisdiction over CSL Limited appropriate; denial of dismissal. |
| Whether the standard at dismissal allows reliance on interdependence plus factors | Plausible conspiracy shown by interdependence with multiple plus factors. | Insufficient plus factors and timing to infer agreement at this stage. | Twombly standard applied correctly; complaint passes pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible grounds to infer agreement)
- In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 630 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2010) (parallel conduct with plus factors can be plausibly instructed as conspiracy)
- In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002) (circumstantial evidence may support conspiracy inference)
- Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999) (interdependence and meaningful inferences from conduct)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (requires that plaintiffs show no rationally plausible alternative explanation)
- Reserve Supply Corp. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 971 F.2d 37 (7th Cir. 1992) (standard for evaluating conspiracy in antitrust at summary judgment)
- In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prod. Antitrust Litig., 906 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1990) (leading vs. sequential parallelism in antitrust context)