According to an update on Packaging Dive, Smurfit Westrock was dismissed from the ongoing price-fixing lawsuit brought by Artuso Pastry against the eight major existing paper and packaging companies. But other adjacent entities were also named.
Like Graphic Packaging International last month, Smurfit Westrock was dismissed without prejudice. That means a defendant could be called back to the case later if new information comes to light of its potential involvement, although legal experts say it’s not a common scenario.
The court documents do not address why GPI and SW were dismissed, and the companies declined to comment on litigation.
The defendants banded together to file a motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, the deadline set by the court for such filings. The dismissal reason “failure to state a claim” means even if some of the facts the plaintiff stated are true, they don’t establish a legal claim, explained an attorney with antitrust defense expertise who reviewed the complaint but is not involved in the case.
In this case, the motion to dismiss suggests that even if it were true that all of the defendants simultaneously raised their prices, the plaintiff does not provide sufficient facts to show collusion, specifically an advance agreement to raise prices.
Because it’s typically difficult for a plaintiff to access details about any alleged price-fixing agreements, “antitrust complaints often rely on circumstantial facts to show the existence of an agreement, and the court must make a determination as to whether those facts are sufficient,” Hurtado said.
Another common argument in this type of dismissal request for antitrust cases is the plaintiff does not have standing to sue the defendants because it did not suffer antitrust injury, Hurtado explained. For instance, if a plaintiff purchased corrugated boxes from an independent supplier who purchased the material from one of the named manufacturers, the court would have to determine if the plaintiff’s injuries were too derivative or remote, Hurtado said.
“To overcome this type argument, the plaintiff would not only need to allege that it was injured, but it would also need to allege that the injury was directly caused by the defendant’s alleged anticompetitive conduct,” he said.
While GPI and SW were dismissed without prejudice, PCA requested in its new filing to be dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning this would permanently end the case against the company — and the same case couldn’t be brought against it again.
https://boardconvertingnews.com/smurfit-westrock-dismissed-from-ongoing-price-fixing-lawsuit/
Comments are closed.