City Council Agenda and Packet 1973 10 16

Home Browse Search

arA .� T�:5,� • °man • s 'Y' s D!IT"lGCr DOUBT >Eir The o cAuso r;r Ise ay. No, 46414-A AIZ Gypsent Antitrust Cases CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT itiOTl WITH RESPECT TO LiTIGATION INVOLVING GYPSUM WAU.aOARD, LATH AND PLABIZR To Plaintiffs,Intervenors sad Members of the below described Classes: Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED: These are now pending in this Court approximately one hundred and fifty related civil actions for treble demises for alleged violation of the antitrust laws with respect to the sale of gypsum wallboard,'lath and plaster. The defendants idetuised below are certain manufacturers of gypsum products. Some of these actions have been detached to be class actives on behalf of variont losses which are also deed below. You may be a member of one or more of the clan= of plaintiffs in this litigation, sod if so, your right to participate in the litigation and proposed settlement thereof is affected. This Notice le not to be understood as an e epressian of an opinion by this Cant as to the merits of any of the dale*et defenses slanted by tithes side in this litigation, but is seat for the patpose of Wombs you of the pendency of this litigation so that you may decide what steps you wish to take in regard thereto. A. THE LMOATION The venous complaints fa this litigation allege, in substance, that the defendants conspired to, and did (1) lint unreasonably hish prices for gypsum wallboard, lath and planer•, (2) fix the terms and condition of ask of Plum wallboard, lath and plaster: (3) allocate customers and divide markets; (4) adopt uniform and Don- compotitive freight policies for the purpose of fixing, atobiliting and maintaining gypsum prices; and (S) eliminate competition in the production, distribution and sale of gypsum wallboard. lath and punster. Some of the complaints also Include other allegations of asthma violations. The complaints contend that each plaintiff, Intervenor and tikes member paid higher prices for gypsum wallboard, lath and plaster than would otherwise have been paid but for the alleged conspiracy.' The time period for which the conspiracy is alleged extends from various starting dates prior to 1960 up to the present time. The prayers of the complaints seek to recover treble damages together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys' fees, as compensation for these alleged injuries. Defendants deny the foregoing allegations and deny liability. The defendants contend that thae was no illegal conspiracy and deny that plaintiffs or the members of the cltssa were injured or are entitled to any damages. Defendants also contend that certain claims are barred by the statute of limitations, art too remote for recovery and that the actions may not properly be maintained as class anima_ B. DEFENDANTS Tae defendants In this litigation are the following corporations: United States Gypsum Company. National Gypsum Company, Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., The Fiirnkote Company, Fibreboard Corporation. Georgia- Pacific Corporation and The Ceciotex Corporation. It is not necessary foe you to have purchased gypsum wallboard, lath or plaster manufactured by one of the defendants, not need you have purchased directly from a manufacturer, to participate is this litigation. C. THE CLASSES Pursuant so the Court's Orders of July 14, 1972, November 28, 1972, February 26, 1913 and August 14, 1973 (Pretrial Orders Nos. 32, 34, 36 and 3$), the daises of plaintiffs on whose behalf certain of these actions may be maintained„ and the representative parties, are 1. The Dealer-Wholesaler Class represented by the plaintiffs in Lakewood Lsrmber Co. r. Fibreboa=rd Corpo- rtmaas,et al.,Civil Action No.72-146, and canslightg of all persons and business entities throughout the United States and its territories who purchased gypsum wallboard, plaster or lath from a trtanufacturer thereof for male but did not incorporate such products in the construction of any structure, or part thereof. 2. The Applicator or Sub-Contractor Class represented by the plaintiffs in Altmann Bros. of Ohio. es al. v. Linked States Gypsum Company, et al., Civil Action No. 72-642, and consisting of all persons and business •The complaint in the oast action case lot applicators or Gelb-castractora, Civil Action No. 72-642, bemfier more palicularty Mentioned, further aliases in sub.tanti.e. that the deftsieets violated the Robinson Patasan Act by dlscriinirtatory parts, and practices in the oak of opium wallboard, lath and plaster from 1960 to 1972, and that defendants conduct was also a violation of true taw.