In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation
135 F. Supp. 3d 679
N.D. Ohio2015Background
- In April 2014, court certified nationwide Direct Purchaser Class; notices warned exclusion ends class status.
- Settlement talks with FXI, Hickory Springs; later settlements with FFP, Future Foam, Mohawk, Woodbridge before trial.
- Settlements provide for testimony and use of transactional data to estimate joint damages; payments range from $16M to $98M per defendant.
- DeMario conducted financial review; settlements deemed affordable given each defendant’s assets and cash flows.
- Procedural posture: preliminarily certified, notices issued, final approval sought for six settlements; fee petition and expenses considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final approval of six settlements | Direct Purchasers: settlements fair, reasonable, adequate overall. | Defendants: (not explicitly argued separately in opinion) settlements should be approved as negotiated. | Six settlements finally approved. |
| Reasonableness of attorney fees | Class Counsel fees reasonable under Bowling factors; lodestar cross-check supports 20% of fund. | Defendants: fee amount appropriate given complexity and results (implicit). | Award: 20% of gross settlements ($55.10M) for six settlements; total 23.6% of gross ($102.38M) when including prior awards. |
| Reimbursement of expenses | Reimbursement of remaining expenses warranted as typical in antitrust litigation. | Expenses reasonable to be reimbursed to reflect class benefits. | Expenditures reimbursed. |
| Ashley Furniture withdrawal of exclusion | Ashley’s opt-in would dilute class benefits; withdrawal prejudices class. | Ashley argues SRAM permits opt-in after opt-out if prejudice minimal. | Ashley’s motion denied; cannot rejoin after opt-out in this context. |
| Plan of allocation | Pro rata allocation has rational basis and is appropriate for distributing funds. | Allocation consistent with plan and class interests. | Plan of allocation approved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class certification standards guide settlement approval)
- In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (public interest in deterrence and settlement fairness)
- In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., 297 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (fee awards in large settlements and economies of scale)
- In re NASDAQ Mkt-Makers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (assessment of settlement and class representation in complex actions)