Opinion
This Document Relates to: All Cases 00 Civ. 0648 (LAK)
October 10, 2000
ORDER
Earlier this year, the Court certified this as a class action on behalf of "all persons who purchased from or sold through defendants items offered at or sold through defendants' auctions (non-Internet) held in the United States during the relevant period. In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., 193 F.R.D. 162, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). It subsequently appointed David Boies and Richard Drubel of the firm of Boies, Schiller 7 Flexner LLP as Lead Counsel for the class.
Last month, at least two actions identical to these, but seeking recovery on behalf of an alleged class of persons who bought or sold items at Christie's and Sotheby's auctions held outside the United States, were brought in this Court and consolidated with these. At about the same time, Lead Counsel reportedly reached an agreement in principle with Christie's and Sotheby's to settle these the consolidated class actions for $512 million. Some ambiguity has arisen as to the role of Lead Counsel in respect of the cases brought on behalf of purchasers and sellers at foreign auctions.
The only responses to Lead Counsel's motion came from counsel for the plaintiffs in the Kruman and Burkle cases, the actions alleging price-fixing at foreign auctions. Their position is that the motion of Lead Counsel should be denied because Lead Counsel may not properly settle claims for damages based on transactions involving foreign auctions in view of the fact that the class consists only of persons who engaged in transactions at auctions held in the United States.
The contention that the proposed settlement improperly would release claims of members of the certified class who also happened to have engaged in transactions at foreign auctions is premature. That is a matter that may be dealt with when the Court is asked to pass on the proposed settlement and objections are solicited if, indeed, the proposed settlement papers contain a release that would prejudice claims of class members based on transactions at foreign auctions. As no settlement papers yet have been filed, the issue is not ripe for determination.
As far as Lead Counsel's motion is concerned, there is no doubt whatever that the Court intended that Lead Counsel act on behalf of the class that was certified — persons who purchase or sold through Christie's or Sotheby's at non-Internet auctions held in the United States during the relevant period. By consolidating cases involving claims based on transactions at foreign auctions, it did not intend to expand their role. Hence, the motion of Lead Counsel for clarification is granted. They act solely on behalf of the class that was certified.
SO ORDERED.