Page 1 Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 Filed 08/31/2004 Page1 of6
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
In re:
MDL DOCKET NO. 1631
PUBLICATION PAPER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
PLAINTIFF ICS CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION
OF RELATED ANTITRUST ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407
ICS Corporation, plaintiff in /CS Corporation v. International Paper Company, et
al.,' Case No. 3:04-CV-01303-SRU (D. Conn.), respectfully moves this Panel, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 7.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, to transfer all pending and yet-to-be-filed federal antitrust actions arising out of a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for Publication Paper sold in the United
' The full caption of this action is JCS Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
International Paper Company; Meadwestvaco Corporation; UPM-Kymmene Oyj, UPM-Kymmene, Inc.; Sappt
Limited; S.D. Warren Company; Stora Enso Oyj; Stora Enso North America Corporation; Norske Skogindustrier
ASA; Norske Skog North America, LLC; Norske Skog (USA) Holdings, Inc.; Norske Skog Canada Limited; M-Real
Oyj; M-Real USA Corporation, Metsalitto Group Oyj, Metsalitto Cooperative; Mylivkoski Corporation; Madison
international Sales Company; and Bowater, Ine.
.3Page 2 Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _~ Filed 08/31/2004 Page2of6
States to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for pretrial coordination
and consolidation.” As discussed below and in the accompanying Memorandum, the pending
actions listed in the accompanying Schedule of Actions (the “Related Cases”), attached hereto as
Exhibit A, assert common questions of fact and law, and consolidation or coordination of the
Related Cases will promote efficiency and convenience to the parties, the witnesses, and the
courts. The requirements for transfer and consolidation are thereby satisfied.
In support of this motion, ICS Corporation states as follows:
. ICS Corporation is the named plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) in JCS Corporation v.
International Paper Company, et ail., Case No. 3:04-CV-01303-SRU (D. Conn.) (“the ICS
Action”). A true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint (“Complaint’’) in that action
is atlached hereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, that it was injured as a result of Defendants” conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for magazine paper sold in the United States and worldwide. The allegations of
Plaintiffs Complaint refer in large part to investigations by international antitrust authorities,
first announced on May 25, 2004, into price-fixing in the market for magazine paper worldwide.
, Counsel for ICS Corporation are aware of fifteen similar federal actions
arising from Defendants’ conspiracy. These actions contain similar factual allegations and seek
damages from common defendants. Pursuant to Rule of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on
* The Defendants (“Defendants”) are nineteen companies that manufacture, market, sell or distribute magazine paper
in the United States and elsewhere. Nine of the defendants are foreign companies: Norske Skog Canada Limited
(Vancouver, Canada); Metsalitto Coaperative (Espoo, Finland); Metsalitto Group Oyj (Espoo, Finland); Myllykoski
Corporation (Helsinki, Finland); Stora Enso Oyj (Helsinki, Finland); UPM-Kymmene Oyj (Helsinki, Finland);
Norske Skogindustrier ASA (Lysaker, Norway); M-Real Oyj (Metsa, Finland); and Sappi Limited (Johannesburg,
South Africa) (“Foreign Defendants”). Ten of defendants are United States companies: Stora Enso North America
Corporation (Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin); 8.D. Warren Company (Boston, Massachusetts); UPM-Kymmene, Inc.
(New York, New York); Madison International Sales Company (Norwalk, Connecticut); M-Real USA Corporation
(Norwalk, CT and Wayne, N.J.); Norske Skag (USA) Holdings, Inc. (Southport, Connecticut); International Paper
Company (Stamford, Connecticut); Meadwestvaco Corporation (Stamford, Connecticut); Norske Skog North
America, LLC (Seattle, Washington); and Bowater, Inc. (Greenville, South Carolina) (“U.S. Defendants”).
.3Page 3 Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12_ Filed 08/31/2004 Page 3of6
Multidistrict Litigation 7.2(a)(ii), Plaintiff has attached a Schedule of Actions identifying all
pending related federal actions of which ICS Corporation is aware. See Schedule of Actions,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
. The Related Cases make similar factual allegations and requests for relief
as to Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct in the market for Publication Paper. Each complaint is
based on the investigations by United States and European antitrust authorities into that market.
Each of the Related Cases also assert similar legal theories. Each case asserts violation of the
Sherman Act, § 1, or analogous state antitrust laws. Each of the Related Cases seek certification
of a nationwide class of purchasers of Publication Paper sold in the United States.
, Discovery in each of the Related Cases will be substantially similar and
will involve the same or similar documents and witnesses because each case arises from virtually
the same operative facts.
. All of the Related Cases filed outside of the District of Connecticut are in
the beginning stages of litigation, and no prejudice or inconvenience will result from transfer,
coordination and/or consolidation of the cases at this time. The most advanced actions are
pending in the District of Connecticut. In several of those cases, motions to dismiss and motions
for class certification are pending. Absent transfer of all of these cases to a single forum for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent pretrial
rulings on discovery and other key issues, including class certification. Early transfer and
coordination or consolidation of pretrial proceedings in the District of Connecticut in these
actions will promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and help to ensure the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer and coordination or consolidation in the District of
Connecticut will result in a significant savings of time and expense and the development ofa
.3Page 4 Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _ Filed 08/31/2004 Page4of6
consistent body of law regarding litigation arising out of the Defendants’ anticompetitive
conduct.
. Many of the witnesses and documents that are likely to be the subject of
discovery in this action are located in the District of Connecticut. Eight of the Related Cases,
including the most procedurally advanced cases, are pending in the District of Connecticut. Five
of the ten United States Defendants’ principal places of business are located in the District of
Connecticut, and two other United States Defendants’ principal places of business are located in
neighboring Massachusetts and New York.
. Plaintiffs in three other Related Cases and Defendants support transfer and
consolidation of these actions in the District of Connecticut.
. These cases are well-suited for transfer and consolidation, and the District
of Connecticut is the most appropriate Transferee District for this litigation.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons asserted herein and in the accompanying
Memorandum of Law, ICS Corporation respectfully requests that the Panel transfer the Related
.3Page 5 Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _~ Filed 08/31/2004 Page5of6
Cases, together with any other related actions subsequently filed or presently unknown to those
bringing this motion, to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for
pretrial consolidation and coordination.
Dated: August 27, 2004 Respectfully submitted by,
[Lola G Soke lb
Robert G. Eisler
Elizabeth H. Cronise
Jennifer Gross
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEJIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
Third Avenue
48th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Joseph Garrison
Ethan Levin-Epstein
GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN CHIMES
& RICHARDSON, P.C.
Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (203) 777-4425
James B. Brown
HERUM CRABTREE BROWN West March Lane, Suite B100
Stockton, CA 95207
Telephone: (209) 472-7700
Natalie Finkelman Bennett
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER &
SHAH
East State Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
.3Page 6 Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _ Filed 08/31/2004 Page6of6
Kim D. Stephens
Beth Terrell
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-5056
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Attorneys for Plaintiff in ICS Corporation v. International Paper Company, et al.,
Case No. 3:04-CV-01303-SRU (D. Conn.)
.3
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 Filed 08/31/2004 Page1 of6
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
In re:
MDL DOCKET NO. 1631
PUBLICATION PAPER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
PLAINTIFF ICS CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION
OF RELATED ANTITRUST ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407
ICS Corporation, plaintiff in /CS Corporation v. International Paper Company, et
al.,' Case No. 3:04-CV-01303-SRU (D. Conn.), respectfully moves this Panel, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 7.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, to transfer all pending and yet-to-be-filed federal antitrust actions arising out of a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for Publication Paper sold in the United
' The full caption of this action is JCS Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
International Paper Company; Meadwestvaco Corporation; UPM-Kymmene Oyj, UPM-Kymmene, Inc.; Sappt
Limited; S.D. Warren Company; Stora Enso Oyj; Stora Enso North America Corporation; Norske Skogindustrier
ASA; Norske Skog North America, LLC; Norske Skog (USA) Holdings, Inc.; Norske Skog Canada Limited; M-Real
Oyj; M-Real USA Corporation, Metsalitto Group Oyj, Metsalitto Cooperative; Mylivkoski Corporation; Madison
international Sales Company; and Bowater, Ine.
343703.3
PDF Page 3
Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _~ Filed 08/31/2004 Page2of6
States to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for pretrial coordination
and consolidation.” As discussed below and in the accompanying Memorandum, the pending
actions listed in the accompanying Schedule of Actions (the “Related Cases”), attached hereto as
Exhibit A, assert common questions of fact and law, and consolidation or coordination of the
Related Cases will promote efficiency and convenience to the parties, the witnesses, and the
courts. The requirements for transfer and consolidation are thereby satisfied.
In support of this motion, ICS Corporation states as follows:
1. ICS Corporation is the named plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) in JCS Corporation v.
International Paper Company, et ail., Case No. 3:04-CV-01303-SRU (D. Conn.) (“the ICS
Action”). A true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint (“Complaint’’) in that action
is atlached hereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, that it was injured as a result of Defendants” conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices for magazine paper sold in the United States and worldwide. The allegations of
Plaintiffs Complaint refer in large part to investigations by international antitrust authorities,
first announced on May 25, 2004, into price-fixing in the market for magazine paper worldwide.
2, Counsel for ICS Corporation are aware of fifteen similar federal actions
arising from Defendants’ conspiracy. These actions contain similar factual allegations and seek
damages from common defendants. Pursuant to Rule of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on
* The Defendants (“Defendants”) are nineteen companies that manufacture, market, sell or distribute magazine paper
in the United States and elsewhere. Nine of the defendants are foreign companies: Norske Skog Canada Limited
(Vancouver, Canada); Metsalitto Coaperative (Espoo, Finland); Metsalitto Group Oyj (Espoo, Finland); Myllykoski
Corporation (Helsinki, Finland); Stora Enso Oyj (Helsinki, Finland); UPM-Kymmene Oyj (Helsinki, Finland);
Norske Skogindustrier ASA (Lysaker, Norway); M-Real Oyj (Metsa, Finland); and Sappi Limited (Johannesburg,
South Africa) (“Foreign Defendants”). Ten of defendants are United States companies: Stora Enso North America
Corporation (Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin); 8.D. Warren Company (Boston, Massachusetts); UPM-Kymmene, Inc.
(New York, New York); Madison International Sales Company (Norwalk, Connecticut); M-Real USA Corporation
(Norwalk, CT and Wayne, N.J.); Norske Skag (USA) Holdings, Inc. (Southport, Connecticut); International Paper
Company (Stamford, Connecticut); Meadwestvaco Corporation (Stamford, Connecticut); Norske Skog North
America, LLC (Seattle, Washington); and Bowater, Inc. (Greenville, South Carolina) (“U.S. Defendants”).
343703.3
PDF Page 4
Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12_ Filed 08/31/2004 Page 3of6
Multidistrict Litigation 7.2(a)(ii), Plaintiff has attached a Schedule of Actions identifying all
pending related federal actions of which ICS Corporation is aware. See Schedule of Actions,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. The Related Cases make similar factual allegations and requests for relief
as to Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct in the market for Publication Paper. Each complaint is
based on the investigations by United States and European antitrust authorities into that market.
Each of the Related Cases also assert similar legal theories. Each case asserts violation of the
Sherman Act, § 1, or analogous state antitrust laws. Each of the Related Cases seek certification
of a nationwide class of purchasers of Publication Paper sold in the United States.
4, Discovery in each of the Related Cases will be substantially similar and
will involve the same or similar documents and witnesses because each case arises from virtually
the same operative facts.
5. All of the Related Cases filed outside of the District of Connecticut are in
the beginning stages of litigation, and no prejudice or inconvenience will result from transfer,
coordination and/or consolidation of the cases at this time. The most advanced actions are
pending in the District of Connecticut. In several of those cases, motions to dismiss and motions
for class certification are pending. Absent transfer of all of these cases to a single forum for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent pretrial
rulings on discovery and other key issues, including class certification. Early transfer and
coordination or consolidation of pretrial proceedings in the District of Connecticut in these
actions will promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and help to ensure the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer and coordination or consolidation in the District of
Connecticut will result in a significant savings of time and expense and the development ofa
343703.3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _ Filed 08/31/2004 Page4of6
consistent body of law regarding litigation arising out of the Defendants’ anticompetitive
conduct.
6. Many of the witnesses and documents that are likely to be the subject of
discovery in this action are located in the District of Connecticut. Eight of the Related Cases,
including the most procedurally advanced cases, are pending in the District of Connecticut. Five
of the ten United States Defendants’ principal places of business are located in the District of
Connecticut, and two other United States Defendants’ principal places of business are located in
neighboring Massachusetts and New York.
7. Plaintiffs in three other Related Cases and Defendants support transfer and
consolidation of these actions in the District of Connecticut.
8. These cases are well-suited for transfer and consolidation, and the District
of Connecticut is the most appropriate Transferee District for this litigation.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons asserted herein and in the accompanying
Memorandum of Law, ICS Corporation respectfully requests that the Panel transfer the Related
343703.3
PDF Page 6
Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _~ Filed 08/31/2004 Page5of6
Cases, together with any other related actions subsequently filed or presently unknown to those
bringing this motion, to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for
pretrial consolidation and coordination.
Dated: August 27, 2004 Respectfully submitted by,
[Lola G Soke lb
Robert G. Eisler
Elizabeth H. Cronise
Jennifer Gross
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEJIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
780 Third Avenue
48th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Joseph Garrison
Ethan Levin-Epstein
GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN CHIMES
& RICHARDSON, P.C.
405 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (203) 777-4425
James B. Brown
HERUM CRABTREE BROWN
2291 West March Lane, Suite B100
Stockton, CA 95207
Telephone: (209) 472-7700
Natalie Finkelman Bennett
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER &
SHAH
35 East State Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
343703.3
PDF Page 7
Case 1:04-cv-11583-GAO Document12 _ Filed 08/31/2004 Page6of6
Kim D. Stephens
Beth Terrell
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-5056
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Attorneys for Plaintiff in ICS Corporation v. International Paper Company, et al.,
Case No. 3:04-CV-01303-SRU (D. Conn.)
343703.3
Back to 
