Although the New York attorney general had already extracted $3 million in penalties on the charges, a jury returned a defense verdict in a class-action suit charging that Macy’s and other department stores conspired to fix the price of high-end tableware. Plaintiffs admitted they had no direct evidence of a conspiracy and jurors in San Francisco federal court declined to infer one. Manufacturer/defendant Lenox had already paid $500,000 to be let out of the case.

What was truly unusual about the case, however, was that it went to trial at all, given the pressure to settle on defendants in such situations:

Antitrust attorneys say the verdict was remarkable if only because the case made it all the way to trial.

“In terms of a price-fixing class action going to trial, I honestly can’t think of one,” said James McGinnis, a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, who briefly represented May Department Stores, one of the defendants, at an early stage in the case.

Usually, said lawyers on both sides of the bar, a combination of sky-high financial risks and the prospect of criminal prosecution is enough to encourage a settlement. Defense attorneys, for example, may not want to lay all their cards on the table in a civil case while prosecutors are watching.

(Matthew Hirsch, “Macy’s Beats Antitrust Price-Fix Rap”, The Recorder, Jul. 5).

Filed under: antitrust, attorneys general, class actions