102 F. Supp. 3d 418
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Schenker AG (freight-forwarder) sued Qantas (air cargo carrier) in Aug. 2014 alleging participation in an international price‑fixing conspiracy to coordinate fuel surcharges tied to a Lufthansa fuel index.
- DOJ and European Commission conducted raids of multiple carriers on Feb. 14, 2006; press coverage followed but Qantas was not among carriers named in the initial reports.
- Qantas first disclosed it was under DOJ investigation on Aug. 17, 2006, pled guilty Jan. 14, 2008, and its plea covered conduct through Feb. 14, 2006; Schenker opted out of a related class settlement on May 24, 2011.
- Qantas moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as time‑barred, arguing the Clayton Act 4‑year limitations period accrued Feb. 15, 2006 (the day after the raids), making Schenker’s Aug. 7, 2014 filing late even with tolling.
- Court granted Qantas’s request for judicial notice of public articles (for notice, not truth), but found the records did not as a matter of law establish inquiry notice of Qantas’s involvement.
- Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding Schenker adequately pleaded either fraudulent concealment or a continuing conspiracy that tolled or restarted the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schenker’s claims are time‑barred under the Clayton Act | Schenker contends tolling applies because Qantas concealed its role until at least Aug. 17, 2006, and alleges continuing post‑raid overt acts causing injury through Oct. 2006 | Qantas contends the statute began to run Feb. 15, 2006 (post‑raid), that press coverage put Schenker on inquiry notice, and Schenker’s suit (Aug. 7, 2014) is 68 days late | Denied dismissal: factual disputes; plaintiff pleaded fraudulent concealment with particularity and alleged continuing violations sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) |
| Whether public press reports triggered inquiry notice as a matter of law | Schenker says press did not reasonably put it on notice of Qantas specifically | Qantas says widespread coverage of raids and articles made information publicly available, triggering duty to investigate | Court took judicial notice of articles but held they did not conclusively show inquiry notice of Qantas as a matter of law |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period | Schenker alleges specific deceptive acts, secret meetings, staggered pricing, misleading indexes, and that price‑fixing is inherently self‑concealing | Qantas argues Schenker’s complaint admits Feb. 2006 was earliest discovery and fails to plead concealment beyond that date | Court held Schenker adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment and diligence (futility of inquiry) to survive dismissal |
| Whether continuing conspiracy saved claims for later injuries | Schenker alleges overt acts and inflated surcharges continuing into mid‑Oct. 2006 | Qantas maintains the conspiracy (for accrual) ended by Feb. 15, 2006 | Court held the complaint sufficiently alleges continuing violations causing injury through Oct. 2006, restarting accrual for those acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (antitrust conspiracy pleading standards)
- Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, 547 F.3d 406 (courts may judicially notice public documents for inquiry‑notice purposes)
- New York v. Hendrickson Bros., 840 F.2d 1065 (fraudulent concealment tolling of antitrust statute of limitations)
- Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (continuing violation doctrine in antitrust cases)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321 (each overt act causing injury restarts limitations period)
- In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, 80 F. Supp. 2d 181 (price‑fixing conspiracies are often self‑concealing for tolling analysis)