Button - go to Our Firm page
Button - go to Attorney Profiles page
Button - go to Contact page
 
Graphic: Search our site   

Photo - Gavel and Law Books
Return to Home Page
Link to Our Offices page
Link to Current Cases page
Link to Practice Areas page
Link to Media Center page
Link to Articles page
Link to News page
Link to About Class Actions page
Link to Class Notices
Link to Newsletter page
Link to Public Interest Cases page
Link to Trial Experience page
Link to Legal Links page
Link to Employment page
Link to Disclaimer page
Link to Privacy Policy page
Link to Site Map page
 

De Beers Antitrust Class Action

  
With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, serves as plaintiffs’ class counsel in a suit by diamond consumers against South African company De Beers, the world’s largest diamond supplier.
Allegations
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.
Settlement Approved
On November 29, 2005, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler gave preliminary approval to 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 jewelrybeginning 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.
On April 14, 2008, Newark U.S. District Court Judge Chesler stated he will grant final approval to the settlement.
Claims May Now Be Submitted Under The Settlement
Consumers who purchased diamonds between January 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006 may be eligible for a payment under a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against the De Beers group of companies. The settlement provides over $130 million to the consumer class. Claim forms must be submitted by May 19, 2008. To learn more about the settlement and to file a claim on-line, visit www.diamondsclassaction.com.
Contact
To contact a Lieff Cabraser attorney concerning the De Beers antitrust class action, please click here.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a fifty-plus attorney law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We have offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. We represent plaintiffs in class and group actions and in individual lawsuits in cases involving substantial losses. For the last five years, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.
Notice
This website is sponsored by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, a national plaintiffs' law firm.

Our offices
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
E-Mail: mail@lchb.com
Firm Website: www.lieffcabraser.com


Notice: Lieff Cabraser attorneys provide legal advice and practice law for clients in federal district courts throughout the United States and in state courts where we are licensed to practice. In states in which our lawyers are not licensed to practice, we have affiliations with local attorneys who serve as co-counsel with our firm. Please read our disclaimer.

Copyright © 2008 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
 

Antitrust
Antitrust
Learn about cases involving price-fixing and anti-competitive conduct.
Footer