In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions

410 F. Supp. 680, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12572
CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedMay 1, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 410 F. Supp. 680 (In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 410 F. Supp. 680, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12572 (mnd 1975).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM APPROVING PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEYS FEES

MILES W. LORD, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon motion of the “Doughboy Committee of Counsel” for the Court to accept the plan of distribution recommended by the Committee of Counsel and to distribute the “Doughboy Settlement Fund” to certain class claimants. Also before the Court are some sixteen petitions for attorneys fees and allowances from various lawyers representing the class.

1. HISTORY OF THE ACTION:

The Doughboy action is one of the many class actions and class action settlements involved in the In Re Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 4-71-Civ. 435 and M19-93A. A history of these actions and of this particular settlement, is contained in the opinions of this Court and of the Court for the Southern District of New York, and also in the opinions of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd and 8th Circuits. This Court does not intend to fully review the history of all the tetracycline cases, nor the settlement of the Doughboy action. That history can be found in this Court’s “Memorandum Opinion Approving Settlement” in the Doughboy class action, dated February 11, 1974. For the uninitiated, however, a brief review of the Doughboy class action follows.

The Doughboy action is one of three “farm actions, or agricultural actions” involved in the overall tetracycline litigation. The first suit in the Doughboy class action was filed in 1968 in the District of Minnesota by the law firms of Chestnut, Brooks & Burkard and Cochrane & Bresnahan, Doughboy Industries, Inc., et al. v. American Cyanamid Company, et al., 468 Civ. 409. (Doughboy ) 1 That particular suit, and subsequent ones filed in this district and throughout the United States, alleged, in essence, that Defendants had conspired to monopolize, and did monopolize, foreign and domestic commerce in the sale of broad spectrum antibiotics for non-human use. The complaint in that suit further alleged that Defendants conspired to, and in fact did, restrain trade among the several states in the market for broad spectrum antibiotics for nonhuman use.

When the Doughboy action was filed, certain actions were pending in the Southern District of New York, including a criminal case brought by the United States Government and private civil cases for treble damages brought on behalf of purchasers of broad spectrum antibiotics for human use. To the Court’s knowledge, the Doughboy action was the first class action filed involving the agricultural market, or non-human use market.

Besides alleging violations of the antitrust laws of the United States, the *683 Doughboy, Grange and Minnesota Fur Foods cases alleged a national class of all persons, firms or corporations engaged in the production, manufacture, formulation and use of feeds, fodders, forages, supplements and medications used in the agriculture, livestock, poultry and allied industries for the feeding and growing of livestock, poultry and animals, whose principal offices were located throughout the United States of America, its possessions and territories, and who had purchased broad spectrum antibiotics and sustained damages as a result thereof.

On January 28, 1969, an Order to Show Cause why the Doughboy, Grange, Minnesota Fur Foods, and certain other agricultural cases, should not be transferred to the Southern District of New York, before the Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt, was issued by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. On April 3, 1969, the Judicial Panel ordered these agricultural cases to be so transferred.

Prior to transfer of the cases, certain settlement negotiations were conducted. Counsel for the class have stated that initially they were offered $200,000 for the “nuisance value” of the case.

On February 6, 1969, while approximately 140 actions were pending before Judge Wyatt, defendants made a global settlement offer, in an attempt to settle most or all of the cases. In essence, this settlement offer was made to the fifty states, to private non-profit hospitals, to certain hospital insurers, to retail and wholesale pharmaceutical houses, and others. The agricultural cases were not included in the settlement offer.

The original amount offered was $120,000,000.00. During these settlement talks, there was some discussion as to whether or not the agricultural plaintiffs were included in the global settlement offer. It finally was concluded and agreed by all parties that the agricultural cases were not included in the global settlement offer.

On June 24, 1970, Judge Wyatt approved the final settlement of approximately 100 of the cases then pending before him in the antibiotics litigation. State of West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Company, Inc., et al., 314 F.Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y.1970). The settlement was rejected by seven states, private non-profit hospitals and a few others. Judge Wyatt’s approval of the settlement left him with approximately forty to fifty litigating cases.

On February 24, 1970, Judge Wyatt issued Pretrial Order No. 1, which ordered defendants to establish a document depository for discovery purposes, and also created the Plaintiffs’ National Steering Committee (PNSC). The PNSC was broken down into three large subcommittees: (a) a Government Committee, which included the seven non-settling states, and the United States Government, (b) a Miscellaneous Committee consisting of private insurance companies, union health and welfare funds, competitors and foreign governments, and (c) a Farm Committee, consisting of all the cases involving broad spectrum antibiotics for non-human use.

The PNSC elected John Cochrane, Esq., co-counsel in the Doughboy action, as its chairman. Once the committee was organized, various subcommittees for discovery, briefing, etc., were created and began to prepare the cases for trial.

Throughout this Court’s opinions, one finds many references to the Plaintiffs’ National Steering Committee. The Court has seldom seen such a large group of prominent plaintiffs’ antitrust lawyers, often with differing goals and ideas, work in such great harmony and unison. It is the Court’s opinion that the leadership of that committee, plus the strength and cohesiveness with which it bound itself together over the years, was one of the primary factors in achieving the $78,000,000.00 worth of settlements which have occurred since its inception, in the “non-settling” cases.

The Plaintiffs’ National Steering Committee proceeded with discovery in New York, including review of the documents which were being deposited in the Document Depository.

*684

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DAKER v. DAVIS
M.D. Georgia, 2021
United Companies Lending Corp. v. Sargeant
20 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)
In Re Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. Securities Litigation
3 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. New Mexico, 1998)
Muehler v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.
617 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Minnesota, 1985)
Dubose v. Pierce
579 F. Supp. 937 (D. Connecticut, 1984)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Liebowitz
570 F. Supp. 908 (E.D. New York, 1983)
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation
98 F.R.D. 48 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
Ruiz v. Estelle
553 F. Supp. 567 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
Dura-Bilt Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Corp.
89 F.R.D. 87 (S.D. New York, 1981)
In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation
89 F.R.D. 695 (District of Columbia, 1980)
In Re Chicken Antitrust Litigation
560 F. Supp. 963 (N.D. Georgia, 1980)
Jorstad v. IDS Realty Trust
489 F. Supp. 1180 (D. Minnesota, 1980)
Hernandez v. United Fire Insurance
79 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Illinois, 1978)
Axelrod v. Saks & Co.
77 F.R.D. 441 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Chevalier v. Baird Savings Ass'n
72 F.R.D. 140 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)
Midwest Veterinary Supply, V. American Cyanamid
410 F. Supp. 722 (D. Minnesota, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 F. Supp. 680, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-coordinated-pretrial-proceedings-in-antibiotic-antitrust-actions-mnd-1975.