Preliminary Multi-Million Dollar Settlement Announced in Combined OSB Class Actions
A lawsuit claiming that certain manufacturers of Oriented Strand Board ("OSB") unlawfully raised the prices paid by end user indirect purchasers of OSB has had a settlement class certified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The class consists of all persons and entities in the United States who, as end users, indirectly purchased for their own use, and not for resale, new Oriented Strand Board (OSB) manufactured and sold by one or more of the following manufacturers from June 1, 2002 through August 4, 2008:Louisiana-Pacific Corporation ("LP"), Weyerhaeuser Company ("Weyerhaeuser"), Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp. ("Georgia-Pacific"), Potlatch Corporation ("Potlatch"), Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. ("Ainsworth"), Norbord Industries Inc. ("Norbord"), Tolko Industries Ltd. ("Tolko"), J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC ("Huber").
OSB is an engineered wood product used in construction, roofing, flooring and other applications. Indirect purhcasers are those who bought OSB for their own use, and not for resale, from a store or reseller and not directly from the manufacturer.
To resolve the litigation, LP agreed to pay $2,300,000, Norbord agreed to pay $2,200,000, Weyerhaeuser agreed to pay $1,440,000, Tolko agreed to pay $350,000, and Potlatch agreed to pay $300,000. Three previous settlements with Defendants Georgia-Pacific, Ainsworth and Huber totalling $3,350,000 have already been approved by the Court. The total settlement fund created by all eight settlements is $9,940,000.
If you purchased OSB for your own use, not for resale, on or after June 1, 2002, your rights may be affected by these class action settlements, and you may be able to submit a claim. The deadline for objecting to the settlement or opting out of the class is November 3, 2008.
The lawsuit, which has been vigorously litigated for over 2 years, seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs from the manufacturers. Defendants deny that their conduct was unlawful in any respect. The Court has not ruled on the merits of these claims.
