In re Korean Noodles Antitrust Litigation

Welcome to the Korean Ramen Noodles Antitrust Litigation Website

 

Case Summary

 

This is the official website In re Korean Noodles Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:13-CV-4115-WHO-DMR (N.D. Cal.). This is a class action lawsuit involving the price of Korean Noodles purchased directly or indirectly from the Defendants Nong Shim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc., Ottogi Co., Ltd., and Ottogi America, Inc. ("Defendants") that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants engaged in illegal price fixing with respect to the sale of Korean Noodles and that as a result, any person or entity that purchased Korean Noodles directly or indirectly from any Defendant, during the Direct Purchaser Class Period or Indirect Purchaser Class Period paid a higher price than they would have otherwise paid in a competitive market. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and the Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims or defenses.

 

The Court has certified the following Direct Purchaser Class:

 

All persons and entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Korean Noodles directly from Defendants Nong Shim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc., Ottogi Co., Ltd., or Ottogi America, Inc. at any time from April 1, 2003 through January 31, 2010.

 

The Direct Purchaser Class excludes the Defendants, Samyang Foods Co., Ltd., Samyang (USA), Inc., Korea Yakult, Co., Ltd., Paldo Co., Ltd. and any of their current or former parents, subsidiaries or affiliates. The Class Also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

For more information regarding Direct Purchasers, click here.

 
The Court has certified the following Indirect Purchaser Class (also called retail purchasers):

 

All persons and entities that purchased Korean Noodle Products in Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia for their own use and not for resale, from March 1, 2003 through January 31, 2010.

 

Specifically excluded from this class are any Defendant; the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded are the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned and any member of such judicial officers’ immediate family.

For more information regarding Indirect Purchasers, click here.

 

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS:

STAY IN EITHER OR BOTH CLASSES
AND RETAIN OPPORTUNITY TO
SHARE IN SETTLEMENT

IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A CLASS MEMBER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME.

If you wish to remain a Class Member for either the Direct Purchaser Class or the Indirect Purchaser Class, you do not need to take any action at this time. If you remain a Class member, you will be bound by the District Court’s rulings, including any final judgment, and you will be eligible to share in any settlement that is obtained as a result of the litigation.

ASK TO BE EXCLUDED
DEADLINE: JUNE 9, 2017

Ask to be excluded from the Direct Purchaser Class or the Indirect Purchaser Class. If you wish to keep your right to individually sue the Defendants, you must timely exclude yourself from either or both classes. If you exclude yourself, you will not get any money that may be paid to class members as a result of a judgment or settlement of the class or classes.