Exporters Start to Receive Payments from Airline Collusion Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Exporters Start to Receive Payments from Airline Collusion Judgment

A group of Chilean exporters represented by law firm Araya & Cia have started to receive payments of US$500,000 from a New York district court, following a class action against 42 airlines for collusion. The airlines involved include American Airlines, British Airways, Lufthansa Cargo, Lan Airlines and Cargolux, among others. An Araya & Cia release said the airlines were accused of price collusion on fuel and security surcharges during a period between January 2000 and September 2006. The release highlighted more than 1803 companies would receive compensation, with US$113 million distributed between the parties according to their interests. In addition there will be a fund of US$207 million to benefit those who have transported to or from the U.S. with the airlines over the period. Those affected have a deadline of Jul. 27 this year to take part in the compensatory process. "Our office is working with several exporters of fruit, salmon and other products, which sent cargo during this period of time, with the aim of participating in the class action so they can receive compensation payments based on the amount of freight paid," lawyer and firm partner Matías Araya. "Overall there has been little participation from other Latin American companies, except for some Colombian companies," he added. The airlines involved Araya Varela told www.freshfruitportal.com the following 42 airlines were involved in the claim: Aerolíneas Brasileras S.A. (ABSA) Air Canada or AC Cargo LP Air China Cargo Company or Air China Ltd. Air India. Air France (Societé Air France) FreshFruitPortal.com Air Mauritius Ltd. Air New Zealand (Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd.) Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.P.A. All Nipon Airways Co. Ltd. American Airlines, Inc. or AMR Corporation. Asiana Airlines, Inc. British Airways PLC Cargolux Airlines International S.A. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. DAS Air Ltd. (DAS Air Cargo) El Al Israel Airlines. Emirates Airlines Ethiopian Airlines Corp. EVA Airways Corporation Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. Kenya Airways Limited. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (KLM) Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. Lan Airlines S.A. (Lan Chile) or Lan Cargo S.A. Lufthansa Cargo AG or Deutsche Lufthansa AG Malaysia Airlines FreshFruitPortal.com Martinair Holland N.V. Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd. Polar Air Cargo Inc. Or Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. Qantas Airways Limited SAS Cargo Group A/S or Scandinavian Airlines System. Saudi Arabian Airlines, Ltd. Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE, Ltd. Or Singapore Airlines Ltd. South African Airways (Propietary) Ltd. Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. Thai Airways International Public Company Limited. Vicao Aerea Rio-Grandense S.A. (VARIG) www.freshfruitportal.com FreshFruitPortal.com.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Appeal Brought on 25 November 2019 by Confédération
23.3.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/13 Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 6 November 2019 — Stichting Cartel Compensation, Equilib Netherlands BV v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV and Others (Case C-819/19) (2020/C 95/12) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Rechtbank Amsterdam Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Stichting Cartel Compensation, Equilib Netherlands BV Defendants: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, British Airways plc, Société Air France SA, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Société Air France SA, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG, British Airways plc, Air Canada, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, SAS AB, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, SAS Cargo Group A/S, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Société Air France SA, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, British Airways plc Question referred In a dispute between injured parties (in the present case shippers, recipients of air cargo services) and air carriers, do the national courts have the power — either because of the direct effect of Article 101 TFEU, or at least of Article 53 EEA, or on the basis of (the direct effect of) Article 6 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) — to fully apply Article 101
[Show full text]
Info Sheet (Air Cargo) (SRG) (2.10.16)
AIR CARGO ANTITRUST SETTLEMENTS U.S. District Court NY ED 1:06-md-01775 Overview: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Airfreight Shipping Services by, among other things, coordinating surcharges (such as fuel and security surcharges) and by agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of surcharges. They claim that purchasers paid more for Airfreight Shipping Services than they otherwise would have paid. This summary is for informational purposes only, based on SRG’s review of publicly available information regarding the settlement. Claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own, and more information can be found on the Court’s docket and on the claims administrator’s website www.aircargosettlement5.com Class: All persons or entities (but excluding Defendants, their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, as well as government entities) who purchased Airfreight Shipping Services for shipments to, from or within the United States directly from any of the Settling Defendants, any other Defendant, or from any of their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or affiliates, at any time during the period January 1, 2000 up to and including September 11, 2006. Airfreight Shipping Services are defined as paid private air transport of freight or other cargo by an airline acting as a provider of such services Defendants: AC Cargo LP EVA Airways Corporation Aerolineas Brasileiras A.A (Absa) Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. Air Canada Kenya Airways Limited Air China Cargo Company Ltd. KLM Air China Ltd. Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. Air India Lan Airlines S.A. (Lan Chile) Air Mauritius Ltd.
[Show full text]
The Impacts of Globalisation on International Air Transport Activity
Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising World 10-12 November 2008, Guadalajara, Mexico The Impacts of Globalisation on International Air Transport A ctivity Past trends and future perspectives Ken Button, School of George Mason University, USA NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT This paper was prepared by Prof. Ken Button of School of George Mason University, USA, as a contribution to the OECD/ITF Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising World that will be held 10-12 November 2008 in Guadalajara, Mexico. The paper discusses the impacts of increased globalisation on international air traffic activity – past trends and future perspectives. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE FROM THE SECRETARIAT ............................................................................................................. 2 THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ACTIVITY - PAST TRENDS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Globalization and internationalization .................................................................................................. 5 3. The Basic Features of International Air Transportation ....................................................................... 6 3.1 Historical perspective .................................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Court of Appeal and English High Court Reshape Cartel Damages Litigation Landscape in Air Cargo
Latham & Watkins Litigation Practice November 26, 2015 | Number 1900 Court of Appeal and English High Court Reshape Cartel Damages Litigation Landscape in Air Cargo Court of Appeal confirms presumption of innocence is absolute and strikes out economic tort claims; English High Court strikes out entirety of claim brought on behalf of over 60,000 Chinese claimants Background The appeals and the strike out application relate to claims brought by over 65,000 claimants against British Airways plc (BA) for losses arising out of an alleged cartel said to have operated on a worldwide basis between 1999 and 2007 (the Air Cargo litigation). The matters follow a 2010 European Commission decision (presently under appeal before the EU courts) which found that 11 airlines had infringed Article 101 the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (and certain equivalent treaty provisions covering the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland) by colluding on certain elements of the price of air cargo services. The 2010 decision imposed a fine of €799 million. BA in turn brought contribution claims against 23 airlines involved in the alleged cartel. The Air Cargo case is one of the largest cartel damages actions in the English courts; parallel actions have been brought in the Netherlands and in Germany against the airlines in respect of the same alleged cartel conduct. The impact of these rulings on these parallel cases, and future cases brought in courts in England and across Europe, is likely to be significant. The Pergan Appeal – Presumption of Innocence In Air Canada & Ors v Emerald Supplies Limited & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 1024 (14 October 2015), the Court of Appeal heard two appeals brought by certain airlines, including Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd.
[Show full text]
Singapore Airlines Sfo Terminal
Singapore Airlines Sfo Terminal How cystoid is Michail when icteric and contactual Wakefield encarnalising some verticillaster? Rollin is castaway and interwar tearfully while ordained Donn intombs and iodises. Colonialism Ahmet sometimes reapportion any enstatite chanced divisively. The points guy newsletters and easy and beverage are willing to interrupt the us for the origin and goes beyond the world. Not to mention how the airport also has internet cafes where you can get your work done. One of indian subcontinent also see the eva lounge is the sum of departure zones and shoes and helpful and, but rather peculiar timing for. San francisco sfo terminal regardless of singapore airlines does a night only takes inspiration from. The baggages are very very late. Please view shows the sfo. Or alternatively, plush leather armchairs with reading lights and even fireplaces. Track prices, and The Roaming Gnome Design are trademarks of Travelscape LLC. Flights to Manila and Denpasar were fine. The hotel is extremely clean, Air India, flight route and incidence duration. Just four terminals and singapore and the sfo offers showering facilities renders one. Great selection of choice and your browser only two come and highlights schedule change and air chatbot can still take the front of passengers. He was very fluffy, so even more singapore while appearing short as well as part about? The Business Class seats are the usual wide pitch engaged the diagonal flat bed myself I cover so annoying. Search nearby airports for bigger savings. SFO was load of current first airports to designate a spare Quiet Program, and Haji Lane.
[Show full text]
4Th AIA PFC Qrtrly Report Ending June 2007 to FAA (Amended)
TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Anchorage, Alaska PFC Quarterly Report - Receipts Collected For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2007 (Application No. 1 ) Application #99-01-C-00-ANC & 99-01-C-01-ANC $22,000,000.00 0.00 Total Collection Authority $22,000,000.00 PFC Revenue Received Air Carriers Current Quarter Previous Quarters Cumulative Aces Airlines 32.12 32.12 Aer Lingus 317.44 317.44 Aero De Mexico 122.58 122.58 Aero Mexico 98.53 98.53 Air Canada 136,476.21 136,476.21 Air France 1,764.99 1,764.99 Air New Zealand 2,094.33 2,094.33 Air Pacific 8.67 8.67 Airlines Services Corporation 37.96 37.96 Air Wisconsin Airlines 46.54 46.54 Alaska Airlines 11,024,874.06 11,024,874.06 Alitalia Airlines 1,051.51 1,051.51 All Nippon Airways Co 1,905.64 1,905.64 Aloha Airlines 7,152.82 7,152.82 America Central Corp 23.36 23.36 America West Airlines 228,474.04 228,474.04 American Airlines 509,508.22 509,508.22 American Trans Air 6,513.14 6,513.14 Asiana Airlines 2,125.95 2,125.95 Atlantic Coast Airline 96.36 96.36 Avianca 8.76 8.76 Big Sky Airlines 87.36 87.36 British Airways 12,272.36 12,272.36 Canada 3000 10,999.72 10,999.72 Cathay Pacific Airways 271.27 271.27 China Airlines 78,473.09 78,473.09 Condor 51,063.24 51,063.24 Condor Flugdienst, GMBH 12,826.71 12,826.71 Continental Airlines 1,380,859.31 1,380,859.31 Czech Airlines 348.36 348.36 Delta Airlines 1,673,182.33 1,673,182.33 Elal Israel Airlines 110.74 110.74 Emirates 14.57 14.57 Era Aviation, Inc.
[Show full text]
Inbound Flight Options As at 16 July
EXTENDED COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS INBOUND FLIGHT OPTIONS AS AT 16 JULY A number of airlines are continuing to support freight in and out of Australia on commercial freight-only flights. Please note the below list is not comprehensive. The best way to access these flights is through standard freight operations channels, including your freight forwarder. The following information outlines the airlines who are continuing to run air freight options for exporters as at 16 July 2020. These flights are not supported by IFAM, but this list has been prepared to help Australian businesses understand commercially available options for airfreight outside the IFAM. AIRLINE ORIGIN DESTINATION SCHEDULE WEBSITE Qantas Freight Auckland Brisbane Click here Click here Qantas Freight Christchurch Sydney Click here Click here Qantas Freight Hong Kong Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney Click here Click here Qantas Freight Narita Sydney and Brisbane Click here Click here Qantas Freight Singapore Melbourne and Brisbane Click here Click here Qantas Freight Chicago Sydney (via LAX, DFW and HNL) Click here Click here Virgin Australia Los Angeles Brisbane Click here Click here Qatar Cargo Doha Perth (via Singapore and Melbourne) Click here Click here Qatar Cargo Doha Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney Click here Click here Etihad Cargo Abu Dhabi Melbourne and Sydney Click here Click here Air Canada Cargo Vancouver Sydney (via Auckland) Click here Click here AIRLINE ORIGIN DESTINATION SCHEDULE WEBSITE Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney Click here Singapore
[Show full text]
Annual Report 2010 66Th Annual General Meeting Berlin, June 2010
Giovanni Bisignani Director General & CEO International Air Transport Association Annual Report 2010 66th Annual General Meeting Berlin, June 2010 Promoting sustainable forest management. This paper is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and is cellulose based and recyclable. IATA Board of Governors 06 Simplifying the Business 30 Director General’s Message 08 Cost Efficiency 36 State of the Industry 10 Industry and Financial Services 40 Safety 16 Aviation Solutions 46 Security and Facilitation 20 IATA Membership 50 Regulatory and Public Policy 24 IATA Offices 52 Environment 26 Note: Unless specified otherwise, all dollar ($) figures in this annual report refer to US dollars (US$). Cautious optimism is returning. But challenges continue. We must rebuild the industry on a new and more resilient foundation. Safety, security, and environmental responsibility are the pillars of our industry, which we must constantly strengthen. Shocks and crises have exposed the weakness of the industry structure. The nearly $50 billion loss over the last decade is a blunt case for big change. Giovanni Bisignani 6 IATA Board of Governors as of 1 May 2010 Khalid Abdullah Almolhem Andrés Conesa Harry Hohmeister SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES AEROMEXICO SWISS Richard Anderson Enrique Cueto Mats Jansson DELTA AIR LINES LAN AIRLINES SAS Gerard Arpey Rob Fyfe Alan Joyce AMERICAN AIRLINES AIR NEW ZEALAND QANTAS David Bronczek Naresh Goyal Temel Kotil FEDEX EXPRESS JET AIRWAYS TURKISH AIRLINES Chew Choon Seng Peter Hartman Liu Shaoyong SINGAPORE AIRLINES KLM CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES Yang Ho Cho Pedro Heilbron Samer Majali KOREAN AIR COPA AIRLINES GULF AIR 7 Hussein Massoud Jean-Cyril Spinetta EGYPTAIR AIR FRANCE Wolfgang Mayrhuber Glenn Tilton LUFTHANSA UNITED AIRLINES Titus Naikuni Tony Tyler KENYA AIRWAYS CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS Fernando Pinto José Viegas TAP PORTUGAL LAM-MOZAMBIQUE AIRLINES Calin Rovinescu Willie Walsh AIR CANADA BRITISH AIRWAYS Vitaly Saveliev AEROFLOT Tony Tyler Chairman IATA Board of Governors 8 Director General’s Message Airlines lost $9.9 billion in 2009.
[Show full text]
Collusion Claims Hit Carriers Including American Airlines, Lan Chile
A group of claimants including 20 Chilean exporters will receive US$350 million in compensation from major airline companies over alleged price collusion deals between 2000 and 2006. The Chilean exporters were represented by local law firm Araya & Cia, but partner Matías Araya Varela says the exact amount of the total sum to be given to his clients cannot yet be revealed. "There was price collusion on fuel and security surcharges during an understood period between January 2000 and Septembre 2006, which effectively led to an increase in air freight during that period, which is why a collective lawsuit was brought in the United States," Araya Varela says. "The distribution of the compensatory sum is in respect to the amounts among the participants, so it doesn't mean that one determined airline compensates X million; it is only distributed to those who transported with that airline, and that it's divided by those who presented claims of having shipped with whichever airline," he says. "It is forecast that the recuperation amount would be between 5% and 10% of the value of freight paid in the period." He says the 20 Chilean companies will likely receive their payments in the first half of next year, provided they can prove they paid for freight during the period and meet requirements. A U.S. shipping agent started the claim in 2006 which led to an investigation, before the airlines eventually decided to pay compensation but without recognizing responsibility. Araya Varela can confirm that to date Colombian exporters are also involved in the claims against the airlines.
[Show full text]
Fly Quiet Program Chicago O’Hare International Airport
1st Quarter 2018 Report Fly Quiet Program Chicago O’Hare International Airport Visit the O’Hare Noise Webpage on the Internet at www.flychicago.com/ORDNoise st 1 Quarter 2018 Report BACKGROUND On June 17, 1997, the City of Chicago announced that airlines operating at O’Hare International Airport had agreed to use designated noise abatement flight procedures in accordance with the Fly Quiet Program. The Fly Quiet Program was implemented in an effort to further reduce the impacts of aircraft noise on the surrounding neighborhoods. The Fly Quiet Program is a voluntary program that encourages pilots and air traffic controllers to use designated nighttime preferential runways and flight tracks developed by the Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA) in cooperation with the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, the airlines, and the air traffic controllers. These preferred routes direct aircraft over less-populated areas, such as forest preserves, highways, as well as commercial and industrial areas. As part of the Fly Quiet Program, the Chicago Department of Aviation prepares a Quarterly Fly Quiet Report. This report is shared with CDA staff, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, the airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the general public. The Fly Quiet Report contains detailed information regarding Fly Quiet Mode, runway use, flight operations, flight tracks, and noise complaints and 24-hour tracking of ground run-ups. The data presented in this report is compiled from the Airport Noise Management System (ANMS) and airport operation logs. FLY QUIET MODE (FQM) The FAA considers nighttime hours as 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.1 It is the CDA’s goal for the Fly Quiet Program to occur during the entire nine-hour nighttime period of 10:00 p.m.
[Show full text]
NBR Antitrust Litigation
For settlement questions, or to get the claim process started, contact Janice Hart at (800) 729-5998 or email Janice at [email protected] If your company used Airfreight Shipping Services directly from one or more of the Defendants, you could be entitled to a substantial payment from the Air Cargo 5 Settlement. In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1775, Master File 06-MD-1775 (JG) (VVP) Settlement Fund: $197,500,000 (this is the Fifth Settlement Fund under the Air Cargo Litigation) (Litigation continues against the remaining Defendants) Period of Claim: January 1, 2000 through September 30, 2006 Filing Deadline: September 9, 2016 Summary: The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Airfreight Shipping Services by, among other things, coordinating surcharges (such as fuel and security surcharges) and by agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting of surcharges. The lawsuit claims that as a result, purchasers paid more for Airfreight Shipping Services than they otherwise would have paid. Eligibility: To be a member of the Settlement Class, you must have purchased airfreight shipping services directly from one or more of the Defendants listed below for shipments to, from, or within the United States during the period January 1, 2000 through September 11, 2006. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, their respective parents, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all government entities. Defendants: AC Cargo LP Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. Martinair Holland N.V. Aerolineas Brasileiras S.A. (Absa) China Airlines, Ltd. Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd. Air Canada DAS Air, Ltd.
[Show full text]
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Flight Tracking
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Flight Tracking Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport offers Flight Tracking with an Internet flight tracking system that allows you to independently watch the movement of flights and air traffic patterns within the region. It also shows aircraft transiting through our airspace. Flight Tracking Real Time Information shows flight activity to and from the Airport and the surrounding area. There is a 10 minute delay for security. Some flight information is limited for security. Playback Select Playback makes it easy to review flight activity. All flights are available in “Playback” one hour after they appeared in “Real Time” mode, and up to three months of past flight activity is available to be played back at any time. To operate Playback select day, time (24-hour clock) duration of playback and then click “Get Data” Playback Controls will appear with event track, play, pause, rewind and speed control. Aircraft Trail Color-Coding Green: aircraft trails represent departures from Anchorage Blue: aircraft trails represent arrivals to Anchorage Black: aircraft trails represent overflights A circle is placed around a “Selected” aircraft Aircraft Icons Aircraft icon indicates the type of aircraft: Large Jet, small jet, props/turbo props, and helicopter Pan and Zoom To Pan: use click and drag To Zoom: use the + and – keys or the scroll wheel on your mouse Settings The Settings feature allows users to customize the screen Aircraft Size: choose 3 sizes of aircraft icons Selected Track: allows the user to “click” on an aircraft to see details on the flights Aircraft Trails: displays the aircraft trails, or flight path.
[Show full text]