• "One of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms."

    American Lawyer

  • "Representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar."

    The National Law Journal

  • "Their effective and caring advocacy for clients has earned Lieff Cabraser its first-class reputation."

    The Daily Journal
  • NLJ Hot List icon
  • Super Lawyers Nationwide

  • Lieff Cabraser: follow us on (social media links)

Case Center

De Beers Diamonds

  • Issue: Monopolization

DeBeers Diamond Antitrust Class Action

Lieff Cabraser serves as plaintiffs' co-class counsel in a suit by diamond consumers against South African company De Beers, a privately held group of foreign-based companies and the world's largest diamond supplier.

Allegations Summarized

In the litigation, plaintiffs alleged that De Beers, a privately held group of foreign-based companies, had monopolized the international diamond business through its control of mines and a web of agreements with diamond suppliers in other countries. De Beers denied the allegation and maintained that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts.

Captioned Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., the federal court class action names DB Investments, Inc., De Beers S.A., De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, CSO Valuations A.G., Central Selling Organization, and De Beers Centenary A.G. as defendants.

District Court Approves Settlement

On November 29, 2005, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler preliminarily approved a settlement of the class action. Under the terms of the agreement, De Beers will pay $295 million to U.S. jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry beginning in 1994. Equally significant, De Beers agreed to an injunction requiring it to abide by the United States federal and state antitrust laws, and to submit to the jurisdiction of United States courts for enforcement of the injunction.

Following preliminary approval of the settlement, Judge Chesler appointed a special master to consider the allocation and distribution of the settlement money among jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers. In May 2008, the district court granted final approval to the settlement. Objectors to the settlement filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit.

Status of Appeal

On July 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the settlement and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration.  As set forth in a petition for rehearing en banc submitted by class counsel, the appellate decision is erroneous and places in jeopardy whether DeBeers, a known monopolist that has eluded U.S. jurisdiction for a century, will be held accountable for its violations of U.S. antitrust laws.

On August 27, 2010, the appellate court vacated its July 13, 2010 opinion and granted the petition for rehearing en banc. On December 20, 2011, in a significant opinion concerning antitrust and class action law, the en banc panel affirmed the District Court's approval of the settlement.

Learn More

To learn more about the case please visit www.diamondsclassaction.com  To contact a Lieff Cabraser attorney concerning the De Beers antitrust class action, please click here.