In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, 284 F.R.D. 328

This case concerns an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the titanium dioxide market, involving plaintiffs Haley Paint, Isaac Industries, and East Coast Colorants (Bre en Color Concentrates) against DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos, and Millennium.
Defendants allegedly controlled about 70% of global TiO2 capacity and the market is highly centralized with high entry barriers.
TiO2 is a widely used white pigment with inelastic demand; plaintiffs allege declining market conditions preceded a cartel beginning in 2002 to raise prices.
The class period runs from February 1, 2003 to the present, with prices purportedly increasing and defendants earning billions.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3); the court held a full certification hearing and granted certification.
The court analyzed market structure and expert evidence (Dr. Lamb for plaintiffs; Dr. Burtis for defendants) to determine common proof of class-wide impact and damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) numerosity	Plaintiffs: numerosity met (700+ purchasers, potentially thousands)	Defendants: contest numerosity	Numerosity satisfied under Rule 23(a)(1)
Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)	Plaintiffs: conspiracy existence and impact are common to all members	Defendants: rely on individualized impact/damages proof	Common questions predominate; conspiracy existence is a class-wide issue
Whether typicality and adequacy of representation are satisfied	Plaintiffs: named plaintiffs share injury (overcharge) and aims with class	Defendants: assert dissimilarities and conflicts among named plaintiffs	Typicality and adequacy satisfied under Rule 23(a)(3)-(4)
Whether damages can be proven on a class-wide basis	Plaintiffs: regression and other common methods can show class-wide overcharge	Defendants: damages must be individualized	Damages capable of class-wide proof via regression and other common methods; individual damages may require future procedural approaches
Whether a class action is a superior method for adjudication	Plaintiffs: class treatment efficient given common issues	Defendants: no specific superiority argument beyond adequacy of common issues	Class action is superior under Rule 23(b)(3)

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (rigorous analysis required for class certification; commonality and predominance principles)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (complex class actions require rigorous Rule 23 analysis)
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (pre-Rule 23 analysis guidance on certification)
Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rule 23 analysis and predominance considerations)
Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 2003) (necessity of rigorous analysis in class certification; potential issues of representation)
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (rigorous common-questions analysis for class certification; expert disputes)
Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2006) (typicality and commonality considerations in antitrust class actions)
In re EPDM Antitrust Litig., 256 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2009) (class-wide proof feasible for impact and damages)
In re Rail Freight Antitrust Litig., — F.R.D.— (D.D.C. 2012) (class-wide injury proof methods; consideration of common vs. individual issues)
Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (per se Sherman Act violation for price-fixing)