According to a report in Packaging Dive, Graphic Packaging International has been dismissed from the containerboard price-fixing lawsuit that New York-based Artuso Pastry Foods Corp. filed against eight of the largest fiber product producers in North America.
The court documents did not state Artuso’s reasons for requesting that GPI be dismissed, and note the case will continue against the other defendants, which include Cascades, Georgia-Pacific, Greif, International Paper, Packaging Corporation of America, Pratt Industries and Smurfit Westrock.
Although the court and parties did not publicly offer reasons for the action, known industry information could offer some clues. For instance, Graphic Packaging International’s primary customer base is for its ready-made consumer packaging products, not containerboard. That said, the lawsuit does include “containerboard sheets, linerboard sheets, and finished packaging products made from containerboard and/or linerboard” in its definition for “containerboard.”
GPI was not involved in the notable 2010 price-fixing case that Kleen Products brought against multiple containerboard producers, although several of those defendants are also named in Artuso’s current lawsuit. GPI generally was not the first to initiate price increases on its products over the last couple years, although it did follow suit at times when a cluster of companies took similar actions.
Artuso would be unlikely to convince the court that fiber companies colluded based solely on a wave of nearly identical price increases occurring within days of each other, Hurtado suggested. Importantly, antitrust cases such as this one require the plaintiff to prove the named defendants all collaborated on some sort of advance conspiracy to raise prices.
GPI was “dismissed without prejudice,” meaning that although it was released from the case, it could be called back later if new information comes to light of its potential involvement. Still, “in these cases where it’s a voluntary dismissal, where the plaintiff is letting [the defendant] out of the case on their own, you usually don’t get information about it” after the dismissal, Hurtado said.
All defendants have until Oct. 20 to respond to the initial complaint. If any responses are motions to dismiss, Artuso’s deadline to file opposition is Dec. 19. Defendants would then have until Jan. 20 to reply.
This is a significantly longer briefing schedule than what is typical in most civil cases, according to Hurtado. “Courts frequently allow more time in antitrust cases because these cases are often complex and involve detailed factual allegations about markets, competition, and economic theories of harm,” he said.
The longer schedule helps to ensure that the issues are fully briefed for the court.
https://boardconvertingnews.com/gpi-dismissed-from-containerboard-price-fixing-lawsuit/
Comments are closed.