Visit FlexiblePolyUrethaneFoamSettlement.com, and get Claim form, important dates, notices, everything needed to claim for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Settlement.
Many direct purchaser of flexible polyurethane foam sued the country's leading manufacturers and suppliers of flexible polyurethane foam alleging that they conspired to fix the prices of the product in violation of antitrust laws. There are number of foam manufacturers and suppliers fixed the prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane-foam products for well over a decade, resulting in noteworthy overcharges to their customers. Some of them have already agreed to settle the allegations, and many others may also agree to class action settlements in the future. If you are eligible for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Settlement, then claim hassle free at FlexiblePolyUrethaneFoamSettlement.com.
Flexible polyurethane foam is widely used as cushioning and insulation in products like bedding, packaging, flooring and cars. Since at least 1999, the direct purchasers (variety of foam, packaging and carpet companies) have accused the defendants (manufacturers and suppliers of flexible polyurethane foam) of conspiring to fix the price of the polyurethane foam. In July 2010, the FBI and European Commission raided the offices of several foam makers. Soon after, many proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foam industry were filed in courts across the country throughout 2010. Among them, Vitafoam Inc. was the first accused for the price-fixing conspiracy in February 2010 and sought acceptance into the U.S. Department of Justice's corporate leniency program.
U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary certified the direct- and indirect-purchaser classes in April and there were seven named direct-purchaser plaintiffs – Ace Foam Inc., Adams Foam Rubber Co., Cambridge of California Inc. and Foam Factory Inc. As per the complaint filed by the direct-purchaser class in 2011, the defendants engaged in phone conversations, letters and in-person meetings to harmonize the timing and amount of the foam price increases.
On June 21, 2013, the Court granted final approval of settlements with two defendants - Vitafoam Inc. and Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd., and Domfoam International, Inc. Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd. agreed to pay $9 to $15 million to settle claims with the direct-purchaser class. About two years after, Leggett & Platt agreed to pay nearly $40 million to settle allegations it conspired to fix the prices of flexible polyurethane foam. Also, Carpenter Co., E.R. Carpenter LP and Carpenter Holdings Inc. have agreed to pay $108 million to settle the antitrust class action lawsuit. Carpenter’s settlement is 2 1/2 times more the size of the almost $40 million deal agreed by furniture components producer Leggett & Platt Inc. These setting defendants also have agreed to assist in the antitrust investigation against the remaining defendants.
The manufacturer defendants account for 80 to 90% of U.S. slabstock foam sales and more than 90% of carpet underlay sales, are located mainly in North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Canada. Here defendants deny the allegations and refuse that they did anything wrong. Moreover, they disagree with that the direct purchasers paid more for the polyurethane foam products.
A trial date of 31st March, 2015 has been scheduled for the case to proceed against the non-settling defendants. Here are listed non-settling defendants:
Who’s Eligible?
All Direct Purchaser (Plaintiffs) that purchased Flexible Polyurethane Foam in the United States directly from a Defendant (both the settling Leggett & Platt and Carpenter, as well as the non-settling Defendants) or Co-conspirator from January 1, 1999 through August 2010 into the United States.
Potential Award:
It’s different. The funds from the Leggett & Platt and Carpenter class action settlements will be distributed based on a “Plan of Allocation” as approved by the court. The pro rata share every Class Member will get will be based on the dollar amount of their direct purchases.
Proof of Purchase: Information about your flexible polyurethane foam purchases, with the amount paid.
Claim Form: Claim Form
Claim Form Deadline: January 26, 2015
Case Name: In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-md-02196-JZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Final Hearing: February 3, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
Trial Date: March 31, 2015
Settlement Website:http://www.FlexiblePolyUrethaneFoamSettlement.com/
Court Documents:All important documents available here
Claims Administrator:
In re: Polyuretahne Foam Antitrust Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 9907
Dublin, OH 43017-5807
1-888-331-9196
Class Counsel:
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Defense Counsel:
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Many direct purchaser of flexible polyurethane foam sued the country's leading manufacturers and suppliers of flexible polyurethane foam alleging that they conspired to fix the prices of the product in violation of antitrust laws. There are number of foam manufacturers and suppliers fixed the prices of polyurethane foam and polyurethane-foam products for well over a decade, resulting in noteworthy overcharges to their customers. Some of them have already agreed to settle the allegations, and many others may also agree to class action settlements in the future. If you are eligible for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Settlement, then claim hassle free at FlexiblePolyUrethaneFoamSettlement.com.
Flexible polyurethane foam is widely used as cushioning and insulation in products like bedding, packaging, flooring and cars. Since at least 1999, the direct purchasers (variety of foam, packaging and carpet companies) have accused the defendants (manufacturers and suppliers of flexible polyurethane foam) of conspiring to fix the price of the polyurethane foam. In July 2010, the FBI and European Commission raided the offices of several foam makers. Soon after, many proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foam industry were filed in courts across the country throughout 2010. Among them, Vitafoam Inc. was the first accused for the price-fixing conspiracy in February 2010 and sought acceptance into the U.S. Department of Justice's corporate leniency program.
U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary certified the direct- and indirect-purchaser classes in April and there were seven named direct-purchaser plaintiffs – Ace Foam Inc., Adams Foam Rubber Co., Cambridge of California Inc. and Foam Factory Inc. As per the complaint filed by the direct-purchaser class in 2011, the defendants engaged in phone conversations, letters and in-person meetings to harmonize the timing and amount of the foam price increases.
On June 21, 2013, the Court granted final approval of settlements with two defendants - Vitafoam Inc. and Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd., and Domfoam International, Inc. Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd. agreed to pay $9 to $15 million to settle claims with the direct-purchaser class. About two years after, Leggett & Platt agreed to pay nearly $40 million to settle allegations it conspired to fix the prices of flexible polyurethane foam. Also, Carpenter Co., E.R. Carpenter LP and Carpenter Holdings Inc. have agreed to pay $108 million to settle the antitrust class action lawsuit. Carpenter’s settlement is 2 1/2 times more the size of the almost $40 million deal agreed by furniture components producer Leggett & Platt Inc. These setting defendants also have agreed to assist in the antitrust investigation against the remaining defendants.
The manufacturer defendants account for 80 to 90% of U.S. slabstock foam sales and more than 90% of carpet underlay sales, are located mainly in North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Canada. Here defendants deny the allegations and refuse that they did anything wrong. Moreover, they disagree with that the direct purchasers paid more for the polyurethane foam products.
A trial date of 31st March, 2015 has been scheduled for the case to proceed against the non-settling defendants. Here are listed non-settling defendants:
FFP Holdings LLP (formerly known as Flexible Foam Products Inc.)
FXI – Foamex Innovations Inc.
Future Foam Inc.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
Mohawk Industries Inc.
Woodbridge Foam Corporation
Woodbridge Sales & Engineering Inc.
Woodbridge Foam Fabricating Inc.
Louis Carson
David Carson
FXI – Foamex Innovations Inc.
Future Foam Inc.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
Mohawk Industries Inc.
Woodbridge Foam Corporation
Woodbridge Sales & Engineering Inc.
Woodbridge Foam Fabricating Inc.
Louis Carson
David Carson
Who’s Eligible?
All Direct Purchaser (Plaintiffs) that purchased Flexible Polyurethane Foam in the United States directly from a Defendant (both the settling Leggett & Platt and Carpenter, as well as the non-settling Defendants) or Co-conspirator from January 1, 1999 through August 2010 into the United States.
Potential Award:
It’s different. The funds from the Leggett & Platt and Carpenter class action settlements will be distributed based on a “Plan of Allocation” as approved by the court. The pro rata share every Class Member will get will be based on the dollar amount of their direct purchases.
Proof of Purchase: Information about your flexible polyurethane foam purchases, with the amount paid.
Claim Form: Claim Form
Claim Form Deadline: January 26, 2015
(NOTE: If you filed a valid and timely Claim Form in the Vitafoam class action settlement, then no need to submit a new Claim Form for the same purchases.)
Case Name: In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-md-02196-JZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Final Hearing: February 3, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
Trial Date: March 31, 2015
Settlement Website:http://www.FlexiblePolyUrethaneFoamSettlement.com/
Court Documents:All important documents available here
Claims Administrator:
In re: Polyuretahne Foam Antitrust Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 9907
Dublin, OH 43017-5807
1-888-331-9196
Class Counsel:
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Defense Counsel:
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
No comments:
Post a Comment