San Francisco Jury Rejects $500M Antitrust Claims in Ramen Price-Fixing Case
After a five-week trial, a federal jury in San Francisco issued a defense verdict in a $500 million antitrust class action filed against two South Korean companies accused of conspiring to fix the price of ramen noodles in the United States.
December 18, 2018 at 06:08 PM
2 minute read
After a five-week trial, a federal jury in San Francisco issued a defense verdict in a $500 million antitrust class action filed against two South Korean companies accused of conspiring to fix the price of ramen noodles.
Food retailers and distributors in 23 states sued Nongshim Co. and Ottogi Corp. in an antitrust case alleging that South Korea's two leading ramen producers conspired for more than a decade to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of Korean noodles sold in the U.S.
The plaintiffs in 2013 decided to sue the companies in the U.S. following a 2008 investigation by the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), which found that Nongshim and its competitors had raised ramen prices in the Korean market without first getting approval from the Korean government. The KFTC later issued an order fining Nongshim and its competitors $100 million each, but the order was later reversed by the Korean Supreme Court in 2015.
The U.S. plaintiffs' action was tried before U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California. After three hours of deliberation, the jury found that the plaintiffs did not prove the companies conspired to fix U.S. prices.
Mark Dosker, a partner in the San Francisco office of Squire Patton Boggs who defended Nongshim at trial, said the case was unusual.
“It is quite rare for antitrust class action cases to go to verdict in the U.S., and we are delighted with the jury's conclusion,” Dosker said.
Scott Edelman, a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who defended Ottogi at trial, was also pleased with the decision.
“We are thrilled for our client. It was a decisive vindication for them. The jury spent over five week deliberating over evidence,'' Edelman said. “I just think that the evidence and the experts the plaintiffs put forward were not convincing.''
Alan Plutzik, a partner in Walnut Creek's Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser who represented the plaintiffs at trial, did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Judge to Hear Arguments on Whether Google's Advertising Tech Constitutes a Monopoly
3 minute readSEC Targets Rising Crypto Financier in $115 Million Securities Fraud
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 2Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 3FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
- 4'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
- 5Court rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250