Sulfuric acid antitrust suit finally decided

Chicago—A long-standing antitrust suit brought by sulfuric acid buyers against producers has finally been concluded, with Chief Judge James Holderman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ruling in favor of the defendants in late December. Plaintiff sulfuric acid buyers Ohio Chemical Services, Independent Chemical Corp., National Alum Corp., Producers Chemical Co., Old Bridge Chemicals Inc., and AG RX brought the suit against several U.S. and Canadian producers in 2003 (GM May 26, 2003). The case achieved class status in 2007, and dealt with activities that allegedly occurred from 1988-2001. The plaintiffs argued that defendants engaged in anticompetitive behavior by conspiracy to reduce the output and fix the price of sulfuric acid in Canada and the U.S. They alleged that U.S.-based producers GAC Chemical Corp., Boliden Intertrade Holdings Inc., Pressure Vessel Services Inc. (PVS), Koch Industries Inc., DuPont, Marsulex Inc., and Chemtrade Logistics allegedly shut down or curtailed production in favor of purchasing acid from Canadian defendants Noranda Inc. and Falconbridge Ltd. The plaintiffs also alleged that Noranda, Falconbridge, and DuPont operated an illegal price fixing and output restriction agreement under the label of Noranda DuPont (later NorFalco LLC), a joint venture. DuPont, Marsulex, and Chemtrade had already settled. Final judgment with prejudice was entered against the plaintiffs and the class. However, the court said the parties preserve their rights to appeal the final judgment and all interlocutory rulings and orders that are deemed subsumed in the final judgment. The case was to go to trial in February 2012; however, Judge Holderman planned to use an interpretation of the Sherman Act that favored the defendants (Rule of Reason) rather than one preferred by the plaintiffs (per se). An interlocutory appeal of the judge’s ruling on the interpretation was rejected by the court, and as a result, Holderman wrote that the plaintiffs agreed that a ruling for the defendants was appropriate. There was no word from plaintiffs’ counsel last week as to whether an appeal is anticipated.