In a class-action antitrust suit, a class of purchasers alleged that the five major high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) producers had conspired to raise the price of HFCS over a period of several years.
In a class-action antitrust suit, a class of purchasers alleged that the five major high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) producers had conspired to raise the price of HFCS over a period of several years. The defendants retained Cornerstone Research, Professor Kenneth Elzinga of the University of Virginia, and Professor Christopher James of the University of Florida.
Professor Elzinga evaluated the plaintiffs’ collusion theory and concluded that the market evidence was consistent with competition and inconsistent with collusion. Professor James reviewed the plaintiffs’ model of damages and presented an alternative analysis.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Mihm granted summary judgment to the defendants. Judge Mihm agreed with our experts’ analysis and found that the plaintiffs’ experts had based their conclusions on “very weak circumstantial evidence” and on “inferences that the Court has found to be not reasonably supported by the record.” The following year, in a controversial opinion, the Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded the case. After a further round of expert reports, the case settled.
