This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Antitrust
Price Fixing
Conspiracy and Fraud

In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation

Published: Feb. 1, 2019 | Result Date: Dec. 17, 2018 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-04115-WHO Verdict –  Defense

Judge

William H. Orrick III

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael D. Hausfeld
(Hausfeld LLP)

Christopher L. Lebsock
(Hausfeld LLP)

Bonny E. Sweeney
(Hausfeld LLP)

Stephanie Y. Cho
(Hausfeld LLP)

Brian Murray
(Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP)

Lee Albert
(Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP)

Gregory B. Linkh
(Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP)

Lionel Z. Glancy
(Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP)

Alan R. Plutzik
(Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP)

Daniel E. Birkhaeuser
(Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP )

Mark P. Kindall
(Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP)

Robert A. Izard
(Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP)


Defendant

Rachel S. Brass
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) for Ottogi

Scott A. Edelman
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) for Ottogi

Mark C. Dosker
(Squire Patton Boggs LLP) for Nongshim

Joseph P. Grasser
(Squire Patton Boggs LLP) for Nongshim

John R. Gall
(Squire Patton Boggs LLP) for Nongshim

Tania L. Rice
(Alston & Bird LLP) for Nongshim


Facts

A class of instant ramen noodle purchasers filed certified class actions against several Korean ramen companies in relation to alleged price fixing in violation of antitrust laws.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Class members alleged that defendants conspired in setting the prices of its noodle products. Plaintiffs claimed that between 2002 and 2005 defendants provided altered documents to the Korean Trade Commission in an attempt to conceal its price fixing. Plaintiffs further claimed that defendants attempted to hide pertinent evidence from them.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought more than $416 million in antitrust damages, and attorney fees.

Result

A jury found in favor of defendants. The jury concluded that plaintiff's failed to prove a conspiracy to fix the prices of Korean ramen noodles.

Other Information

Plaintiffs' suit stemmed from a Korean Fair Trade Commission's $120 million fine against Korean ramen companies based on reports of collusion. The Korean Supreme Court eventually reversed that finding and vacated the fine but plaintiffs continued to prosecute the U.S. antitrust case.


#130977

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390