16 October 2018
Home Page About Us Services Publications Links
VIEWS
TACY'S MEMO
Opinion
Analysis
NEWS
Mining & Exploration
Rough Trade
Polished Wholesale & Manufacturing
Retail
Governmental
Labs & Trade and Industry Bodies
Branding & Marketing
Legal
Financial
Diamond Pipeline
Statistics
ARCHIVE NEWS - PRE 2008
People
Regional Issues
Created Diamonds
Civil Society
Ethics
Development Issues
Conflict Diamonds
Auctions
Kimberley Process
DIAMOND INTELLIGENCE BRIEFS
Diamond Intelligence Briefing 2017
Diamond Intelligence Briefing 2016
Diamond Intelligence Briefing 2015
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2015
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2014
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2013
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2012
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2011
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2010
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2009
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2008
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2007
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2006
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2005
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2004
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2003
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2002
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2001
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 2000
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1999
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1998
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1997
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1996
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1995
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1994
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1993
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1992
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1991
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1990
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1989
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1988
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1987
Diamond lntelligence Briefs 1986
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1985
Diamond Intelligence Briefs 1984
TACY RESEARCH
Tacy's Reports
Tacy's Research
Tacy's Presentations
RESOURCE LIBRARY
Company Reports
Kimberley Process
NGO Reports
Government Reports
Conflict Diamonds
Producer Marketing Documentation
Trade Organization Guidance
Supplier of Choice
Legal Issues
LEGAL
Laws and Regulations
Court Documents
Anti-Money Laundering
Best Practice Principles
Compliance
Competition
Banking
FINANCE
Basel II
Compliance
Decisions
PICTURES
Botswana
De Beers Archive Pictures
Conference Photos
India
Zimbabwe
SITE MAP
MY ARTICLES
created by CyberServe
 Email this      Printer-Friendly Format    
US APPEALS COURT REJECTS DE BEERS' ANTITRUST AGREEMENT
15 July 2010

A U.S. federal appeals court has rejected the De Beers US$295 million antitrust deal between the diamond supplier and its direct and indirect diamond purchasers on what appears to be a technical issue.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the settlement be set aside and returned to a lower court for further consideration since the District Court previously improperly certified a nationwide class of indirect purchasers.

The 2005 settlement agreement, reached by De Beers in an effort to end the price-fixing and monopoly charges against so it could enter the U.S. market directly, defined two types of claimants: direct purchasers and indirect purchasers of De Beers' diamonds. Both groups claimed they were harmed by De Beers' anti-trust behavior when they bought diamonds between 1994 and 2006.

As stipulated in the settlement agreement, of the total US$295 million in damages, US$22.5 million would be distributed to the Direct Purchaser Class, composed of those who acquired rough gem diamonds directly from De Beers, and US$272.5 million would be distributed to the Indirect Purchaser Class, composed of entities or individuals, such as consumers or jewelry retailers, that indirectly acquired either rough or polished diamonds from De Beers.

However, this week, in a 75-page ruling, Judge Kent A. Jordan accepted an appeal made by 34 of the indirect purchasers, which said that purchasers had claims under varying state laws and therefore could not automatically be qualified as a class. The appeal states that in May 2008, when U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted final approval to the anti-trust settlement, Chesler had been too hasty to certify the class as a whole, ignoring the various state laws that precluded some members for pursuing an indirect purchaser claim, sources say.

The case has now been returned to a lower court, the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, for further consideration and to clarify which claims are subject to the treatment as a class.

For more on the claim, see the website established: https://diamondsclassaction.com/index.htm

 

   Back»