Full opinion text
' SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER SINGLETON, Chief Judge. This Order supplements Pretrial Order No. 64, filed on April 15, 1981, releasing certain grand jury materials (government interview statements) of Edwin A. McCain, an employee of defendant St. Joe Paper Company, and Warren F. Fryburg, Robert Edward Lindeman, LeRoy Wesley Stalder, and Phillip L. Barnum, employees of defendant MacMillan Bloedel, Inc., to plaintiffs in this litigation. REMAND On January 14, 1982, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded interlocutory appeals nos. 81-2197 and 81-2235 (In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation Anchor Hocking Corporation, et al. v. St. Joe Container Company, et al., Edwin A. McCain, et al., 687 F.2d 52, 667 F.2d 4) for the following limited purposes: 1. Plaintiffs shall move the district court to compel the testimony of any deposition witness whose unavailable testimony is the object of the present appeal and is still needed by plaintiffs. 2. In connection with any such motion, the parties shall disclose to the district court all discovery information obtained since the entry of the disclosure order now on appeal which they contended affects the need for all or any part of the information withheld. 3. The district court is directed to review in camera the transcript of the grand jury testimony of any witness whose testimony is sought to be compelled. 4. In light of all information discovered since the district court’s disclosure order now on appeal, the district court shall rebalance the need for disclosure of any grand jury transcripts requested against the need for grand jury secrecy and shall enter a supplemental order which shall be certified to this court as part of the record on this appeal. In accordance with the foregoing remand, this court now sets forth details of plaintiffs renewed motions, all discovery information obtained since the filing of Pretrial Order No. 64 (disclosure order) which affects the need for these grand jury materials, the review of the grand jury transcripts and depositions of the witnesses, and finally, this court’s determination upon rebalancing the need for disclosure against the need for grand jury secrecy. In filing their renewed motions and responses in this matter, plaintiffs and defendants categorized the witnesses into two groups according to the companies involved. In furtherance, this Court discusses plaintiffs’ renewed motions separately: Mr. McCain of St. Joe Paper Company; and Messrs. Fryburg, Lindeman, Stalder and Barnum of MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. MOTIONS AND NEW DISCOVERY Regarding Mr. McCain, plaintiffs filed a “renewed motion for production of transcripts and interview statement of McCain, and stated: The Court of Appeals required a motion to compel testimony but that must pertain to Messrs. Barnum, Stalder, Lindeman, and Fryburg who took the Fifth Amendment to all substantive questions. Mr. McCain only relied upon the Fifth once and that pertained to an incident [which occurred] subsequent to his [government] interview. Renewed Motion for Production of Transcripts and Interview Statement of McCain, P.1, n. *. Regarding new discovery information plaintiffs explain that no information has been discovered which lessens the need for these grand jury materials. Though Mr. McCain did his best to testify fully in his deposition of January 6, 1981, he could not recall details of his participation in the price fixing conspiracy. Further, these details have not been discovered despite an intense and exhaustive discovery program. In a separate motion plaintiffs state that defendants have made use of government interview statements to prepare witnesses and to direct the defendants’ discovery efforts. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants’ use of interview statements waives the right of grand jury'secrecy. Responding, defendants assert that discovery since the disclosure order has been massive, counting 225 depositions taken by plaintiffs in these opt out eases. Of the 13 employees of St. Joe Paper Company deposed since the disclosure order, none invoked his right not to testify under the Fifth Amendment. Regarding Messrs. Fryburg, Lindeman, Stalder, and Barnum, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel these witnesses to testify over their Fifth Amendment assertion. A renewed motion for release of government interview and/or grand jury transcripts of these witnesses was also filed. Presently, plaintiffs have limited their request to portions of transcripts in the following subject areas: 1) price communications with one or more competitors relating to any opt-out account; 2) price communications with one or more competitors relating to the Northern Indiana and/or North Central Indiana marketing area; 3) price communications with one or more competitors relating to the Ohio marketing area for the time period after 1971; 4) price communications with one or more competitors or with other MacMillan Bloedel personnel relating to ‘national accounts’ in general or any particular national account, including any opt out account, and including but not limited to efforts to police, adjust, harmonize or explain local or area price differences to such accounts; 5) acts of affirmative concealment of the conspiracy; and 6) such other portions as may be necessary to the context and understanding of the portions produced under (1) through (5). Plaintiffs urge that there remains a compelling and particularized need for these government interview statements due to the continued Fifth Amendment assertion of more than 100 witnesses. Although numerous witnesses have given substantive testimony in the opt out cases, such witnesses are not accorded a high priority as are these four witnesses who had pricing responsibility for opt out plaintiffs’ accounts. A motion to compel testimony does not eliminate this need. Counsel for the four individuals continues to inform plaintiffs that Messrs. Fryburg, Lindeman, and Barnum will persist to invoke their Fifth Amendment right if redeposed and asked the same questions they refused to answer initially, notwithstanding an order compelling their testimony. In the case of Stalder, no questions of an incriminating nature were asked during the deposition; however, counsel for Mr. Stalder indicates that if Stalder were asked incriminating questions relating to his involvement with the Ohio market where his employment responsibility previously lay, he would similarly assert his right under the Fifth Amendment. Defendants counter plaintiffs’ renewed motion with reference to the numerous depositions taken of MacMillan Bloedel witnesses, who did not assert the Fifth Amendment. Particularly, the activities of employees working in both Ohio and Indiana were well covered through depositions of numerous national account personnel. In summary, both parties state that discovery has been extensive and exhaustive since entry of the disclosure order. Plaintiffs contend this discovery has not been meaningful since the witnesses fail to recall details or continue to assert their Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Defendants contend this extensive discovery by virtue of its abundance must have been meaningful. The majority of witnesses have testified without Fifth Amendment invocations. This Court notes an additional factor which has occurred since entry of the disclosure order. Both defendants, St. Joe Paper Company and MacMillan Bloedel, Inc., have settled with all of the opt out plaintiffs in this litigation. REVIEW OF TRANSCRIPTS As directed, this Court reviewed in camera the transcripts of the grand jury testimony of the witnesses whose unavailable testimony is the object of the present appeal. In addition, this Court also familiarized itself with the depositions of these witnesses. By undertaking this task, first hand observations could be made of the memory failures and selective Fifth Amendment invocations. The transcripts of grand jury testimony were reviewed for the purpose of determining whether the details sought appeared in the transcripts, and what portions could satisfy plaintiffs’ particularized need. FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS Disclosure is committed to the discretion of the trial judge and Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure declares this inter alia: (2) General Rule of Secrecy. [A]n attorney for the government shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. (3) Exceptions. (C) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made— (i) when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; .... In our disclosure order of April 15, 1981, this Court exercised its discretion to release certain grand jury materials upon a showing of “particularized need.” As consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court, Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) allows disclosure of grand jury materials only upon a showing of particularized need. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958); Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979). In its remand order, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals directs the plaintiffs to move the district court to compel testimony. In the original disclosure order, this Court “felt it to be beyond its power to compel these witnesses’ testimony where any actual possibility of prosecution exists.” (Pretrial Order No. 64, p. 2, entered April 15, 1981). Without direction by the Court of Appeals to grant the motions to compel testimony, this Court must again deny the motions, but for different reasons. Since the disclosure order, testimony has been compelled of witnesses by this Court in several districts through its sitting as a judge in each district under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The circuits reached conflicting decisions, and the Supreme Court has accepted certiorari on this issue. It seems improper to grant motions to compel testimony over Fifth Amendment assertions at this time. The parties offer one tenable circumstance which may affect the balance between particularized need and grand jury secrecy; the completion of extensive discovery. This Court must determine whether that discovery has been so meaningful as to lessen the need once found to exist. Upon rebalance, this Court again determines that the particularized need outweighs the requirements of grand jury secrecy. The same conclusion is wrought albeit for somewhat different reasons. As with denial of the motions to compel testimony over Fifth Amendment invocations, circumstances have changed so as to alter this Court’s underlying reasons, but compel the same determination. Interpreting Douglas Oil, Judge Caff rey noted: [T]he Supreme Court emphasized that the competing interests of the parties seeking and opposing disclosure must be viewed in their appropriate context, that the standard governing disclosure is not a rigid one, and that the burden on the party favoring release of the transcripts is an ever changing one. In re Screws Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 443, 91 F.R.D. 47, 48 (D.Mass.1981). Despite extensive discovery procedures, Messrs. McCain, Fryburg, Lindeman, Stalder, and Barnum are key witnesses due to their pricing responsibility. They can best support allegations of a price fixing conspiracy. Failure of memory and selective use of the Fifth Amendment prevent meaningful discovery of information crucial to the trial in this litigation. The typical showing of particularized need arises when a litigant seeks to use the grand jury transcript at the trial to impeach a witness, to refresh his recollection, to test his credibility and the like. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 986, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958). The good faith of witnesses who claim to fear prosecution where the statute of limitations has run in most jurisdictions, or who value convenient non-memory is questionable. Adverse witnesses present a ripe circumstance for impeachment and otherwise testing credibility in addition to refreshing their recollection. The government interview transcripts were prepared by the federal government during the course of a grand jury proceeding, were treated like testimony before the grand jury and were personally reviewed and corrected by the witnesses before being authenticated by them. The transcripts are both credible and accurate. The major change in the Court’s reasoning between the first disclosure order and this supplemental order centers on the fact of settlement. The first disclosure order was fashioned to aid opt-out plaintiffs in the development of their cases against St. Joe Paper Co. and MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. This aid is rendered unnecessary as to these defendants. However, plaintiffs must do more at trial than simply show that the remaining defendants were involved in an unlawful conspiracy-to maintain and stabilize the prices of corrugated containers and sheets. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the conspiracy alleged was so widespread and pervasive that it had an impact on prices throughout the country. Moreover, plaintiffs chose to request transcripts of witnesses whose testimony they inferred to be far reaching. Mr. McCain states that he is willing to testify fully with the aid of transcripts to refresh his recollection. In the matter of Messrs. Fryburg, Lindeman, Stalder and Barnum, the requests were narrowed to encompass only that discovery information which may aid plaintiffs’ proof at trial. Other matters of a personal or embarrassing nature to the witnesses shall remain secret. REBALANCING NEED AGAINST SECRECY Particularized need has been illustrated to prevent questionable good faith tactics such as the selective use of the Fifth Amendment and memory failure, and disclosure will avoid a possible injustice in this pending civil proceeding. Through examination of the transcripts and depositions, it is determined that the disclosure requests cover only material needed. It is necessary, still, to rebalance this particularized need against the importance of grand jury secrecy- The reasons for grand jury secrecy are: (1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before [the] grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt. Douglas Oil Co. v, Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 219, n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1673, n. 10, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979). With the running of statutes of limitations, the conclusion of grand jury deliberations, and the extreme unlikelihood of retaliatory gestures, see generally Pretrial Order 64, entered April 15, 1981, concern for future grand jury secrecy remains. A limited and carefully designed release of a small number of grand jury transcripts shall not detract from the indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings. A compelling and particularized need is the only circumstance which allows a court in its discretion to lift the heavy veil of secrecy. Release of grand jury transcripts is not to be used as a mechanism for general discovery. CONCLUSIONS In camera examination of these grand jury transcripts allowed this Court to view facts significant to this litigation not heretofore available by reason of the fact that Messrs. Fryburg, Lindeman, Stalder, and Barnum exercised their Fifth Amendment privilege as to pricing communications, and Mr. McCain failed to remember details of such communications. Disclosure is necessary here to uncover relevant, but otherwise unavailable, discovery information. With the release of these government interview statements any future request for grand jury transcripts by plaintiffs in this litigation will carry a greater burden for showing particularized need since the availability of these transcripts now provides meaningful discovery. For the following reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The motions to compel testimony over Fifth Amendment assertions are DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for release of the entire government interview statement of Edwin A. McCain is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for release of those portions of the government interview statements of Messrs. Fryburg, Lindeman, Stalder and Barnum relating to the following subjects: 1) price communications with one or more competitors relating to any opt out account; 2) price communications with one or more competitors relating to the Northern Indiana and/or North Central Indiana marketing area; 3) price communications with one or more competitors relating to the Ohio marketing area for the time period after 1971; 4) price communications with one or more competitors or with other MacMillan Bloedel personnel relating to ‘national accounts’ in general or any particular national account, including any opt out account, and including but not limited to efforts to police, adjust, harmonize or explain local or area price differences to such accounts; 5) acts of affirmative concealment of the conspiracy; and 6) such other portions as may be necessary to the context and understanding of the portions produced under (1) through (5). are GRANTED. 4. The selections of transcripts relating to the topics mentioned in paragraph number 3 above, and subject to the Order granting release are filed under seal and accompany this supplemental order. 5. Released transcripts are to be used only by counsel of record and their duly retained experts during this litigation, and are not to be discussed or disclosed for any other purpose. 6 Counsel for the plaintiffs are hereby directed to retum the transcripts and all copieg thereof at the cloge of thig litigation. ON NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS Pursuant to this court’s request, the plaintiffs in the above styled litigation submitted a proposed form of Notice to class members concerning additional settlements in this litigation, applications for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and the plan of distribution of the settlement fund. The court has reviewed the proposed Notice and defendants’ responses to the form of notice, has made necessary changes and forthwith hereby ORDERS: 1. The form of Notice attached hereto and incorporated herein is the best notice practicable under the circumstances to be sent to members of the plaintiff class. It complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) and (e), and follows suggested formats offered by the Manual for Complex Litigation (5th ed. 1982). 2. On or before October 4, 1982, plaintiffs shall by first-class mail send the Notice attached hereto and entitled, “Notice to Members of the Plaintiff Class, Purchasers of Corrugated Containers and Sheets,” to each member of the class whose address is known. 3. During the month of October, 1982, plaintiffs shall cause to be published the summary notice attached hereto entitled, “Important Notice to Purchasers of Corrugated Containers and Sheets,” once in The Wall Street Journal. 4. Promptly after completion of the mailing and publication, plaintiffs shall file an affidavit with the court setting forth the names and addresses of all members of the class to whom the notice was mailed, and attesting to the publication of the notice. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation This Document relates to all Class Action Cases M.D.L. No. 310 NOTICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, PURCHASERS OF CORRUGATED CONTAINERS AND SHEETS Pursuant to Rule 23(d) and (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Order of the United States District Court, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of certain additional settlements reached before and during trial in this class action litigation, of the impending distribution of all settlement funds which have been or may be finally approved, of petitions for attorneys’ fees and expenses now pending before this court, and of certain other matters of which this court has determined you should be aware. This Notice is directed to the members of the plaintiff class, as certified by the court on September 6, 1978. Thus, if you timely and validly requested exclusion from the class pursuant to the Notice directed to you dated August 1, 1979, this Notice and the matters discussed herein do not apply and are of no concern to you. The plaintiff class is defined as follows: All persons, including individuals, partnerships, corporations, and other businesses, in the United States (excluding defendants and all subsidiaries and affiliates of defendants and all independent corrugated box manufacturers) who purchased corrugated containers or corrugated sheets directly from any defendant, or any subsidiary or affiliate of any defendant, at any time during the period from January 1, 1960 through January 25, 1978, Out of this class, the court established two subclasses known as the Sheet Plant Subclass and the Container Purchaser Subclass. The Sheet Plant Subclass is comprised of those members of the plaintiff class, other than a defendant in the M.D.L. No. 310 or their subsidiaries or affiliates, which: (a) purchased corrugated sheets; (b) but did not manufacture corrugated sheets; and (c) manufactured and sold corrugated containers and/or corrugated fillers, pads, and partitions which were sold for use in or with corrugated containers. The Container Purchaser Subclass is comprised of all members of the plaintiff class which are not sheet plants. I. STATUS OF THIS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION A. First Group of Settlements The Notice directed to the class dated August 1, 1979, enumerated settlements with twenty-four defendants providing for payment in the principal amount of $298,-637,370. This court approved those settlements on December 21, 1979, and certain class members appealed the approval of the settlements to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After an initial remand to this court and the entry of additional findings of fact, the Court of Appeals affirmed the approval of the settlements. Certain objecting class members sought review in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court denied review on May 24 and June 1, 1982. As a result, this court’s approval of those settlements is now final in all respects. A separate Notice directed to the member of the Sheet Plant Subclass, dated February 11,1980, described a settlement on behalf of that subclass with certain of the defendants mentioned below. That settlement provided for the allocation of $11,000,000 from the above settlement fund to the Sheet Plant Subclass, plus certain injunctive relief. This court approved the settlement on March 18, 1980, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that approval on October 29, 1981. This court’s approval of that settlement is now final. From the beginning, these settlement funds have been deposited and invested, and have earned approximately $175 million in interest to date. The court contemplates that a distribution of these settlement funds can occur promptly after the processing of claims is completed. The total amount of all settlements, including those described below, with interest, amounts to over $500,000,000. B. Jury Trial Trial of this litigation before a jury commenced May 27,1980, against three defendants, Alton Box Board Company, The Mead Corporation, and Westvaco Corporation. In the course of the trials, proposed settlements as described below were reached with defendants Alton Box Board Company and Westvaco Corporation. On September 13, 1980, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class and both subclasses against The Mead Corporation (Mead), finding that Mead had participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of corrugated containers and corrugated sheets sold throughout the United States during a period beginning before January 1, 1964, and continuing at least until December 31,1975; that nineteen other corrugated manufacturers had participated in the conspiracy with Mead; and that the conspiracy caused financial damage in the amount of 5% of the purchase price to purchasers of corrugated containers and corrugated sheets in both subclasses throughout the United States. However, the jury found tjhat the plaintiffs did not establish that the defendants fraudulently concealed the conspiracy, which if proven, would have tolled the statute of limitations. Therefore, the statute of limitations limits recovery of the 5% purchase price to the period March 7, 1973 through December 31, 1975. In January 1981, a Special Master was appointed to hear evidence about the sales of Mead and other co-conspirators to determine the dollar amount to which the 5% overcharge applies. The Special Master, during the period beginning August 1981 through March 1982, has held evidentiary hearings and has developed the evidence of sales of corrugated materials to class members by those companies found by the jury to be members of the conspiracy. Due to the settlement agreement with The Mead Corporation, which is discussed below, the evidence collected by the Master has been ordered by the court to be filed under seal by the Clerk of the Court. The sealed information is not to be revealed to anyone. It is anticipated that this evidence will never be made available to anyone. However, a reasonable estimate of the 5% overcharge as found by the jury could be approximately $300,000,000 to $400,000,000, which amount under the law would be trebled, and from that sum the amount of the settlements with all the other defendants would have been deducted. Absent a settlement with The Mead Corporation, a judgment in that approximate amount could have been entered by the court. II. SETTLEMENT WITH THE MEAD CORPORATION On September 14,1982, the plaintiff class agreed to settle with Mead. By entering into the proposed settlement, Mead admitted no wrongdoing or liability. The proposed settlement is a compromise of disputed claims, but this compromise does not imply that Mead or any of the other defendants in this litigation are liable for the claims made by the plaintiffs. This settlement concludes the litigation against all defendants, including Mead. As a result of Mead’s settlement, the ongoing proceedings before the Special Master have been terminated. The settlement has also eliminated the likelihood of an appeal of the September 1980 jury verdict, which would have prolonged the final resolution of this litigation for several more years. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, which are only summarized in this Notice, Mead has agreed to pay the principal sum of $45 million, plus interest at the rate of 9.5%, to be paid in installments at the following times in final settlement of all claims of the plaintiff class, including both subclasses, which are or could be asserted against Mead in this litigation, including both federal and state antitrust law claims, and plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all such claims against Mead upon final approval of the settlement with Mead described in this Notice: Year of Scheduled Payment (all payments due on October 1) Amount of Anticipated Principal Payment Amount of Anticipated Installment Interest Payments 1982 ........ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1983 ........ 2,000,000 $ 4,180,000 6,180,000 1984 ........ 5.000. 000 3.990.000 8,990,000 1985 ........ 5.000. 000 3.515.000 8,515,000 1986 ........ 5.000. 000 3.040.000 8,040,000 1987 ........ 5.000. 000 2.565.000 7,565,000 1988 ........ 22,000,000 2.090.000 24,090,000 Total ....... $45,000,000 $19,380,000 $64,380,000 The above payment schedule, including the amounts of interest, may change should Mead exercise its right to prepay amounts due. This settlement represents a payment of principal of $45,000,000 paid over time at an interest rate of 9.5%, with interest paid on the unpaid balance on an annual basis as it accrues. A surety bond has been purchased to insure the principal amount of $44,000,000 (amount due after 1982). The cost of purchasing the surety bond was divided evenly between the plaintiff class and The Mead Corporation. A hearing was held on September 14, 1982 to consider class plaintiffs’ and defendant The Mead Corporation’s joint motion for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement. The essential reasons presented to encourage approval were: 1. Pending Congressional legislation could reduce any judgment against The Mead Corporation to $45,000,000; 2. It is uncertain whether all issues in the jury trial against Mead would be affirmed on appeal, and substantial delay would occur due to the appeal taken from any judgment entered; and 3. This settlement brings the total settlement amount to $365,256,747, and this amount exceeds the actual damages suffered by class members. Based on these factors, the court preliminary approved the settlement of the plaintiff class with The Mead Corporation. III. ADDITIONAL PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS In addition to the settlements which were described in the Notice dated August 1, 1979 and February 11, 1980, and the settlement with Mead described above, proposed settlements have been reached with ten more companies providing for payment in the principal amount of $21,619,377.00. These funds have been deposited and invested and are earning interest. These settlements were obtained in the period October 5, 1979 through September 3, 1980, some before and some during the jury trial described above. By entering into the proposed settlements, none of the settling defendants has admitted any wrongdoing or liability. The proposed settlements reflect a compromise of disputed claims, and do not imply that any of the defendants in this litigation are liable for the claims made by the plaintiffs. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreements, eight settling defendants have agreed to pay the following sums in final settlement of all the claims of the whole class, including both subclasses, which are or could be asserted against them in this litigation, including both federal and state antitrust law claims: Date of Settlement Agreement Defendant Amount March 20,1980 ............... Packaging Corporation of $8,000,000.00 America April 2,1980 ................. Pibreboard Corporation, 3,000,000.00 Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Potlatch Corporation June 26,1980 ................. Crown Zellerbach 1,000,000.00 Corporation July 11,1980 ................. Alton Box Board 5,400,000.00 Company Sept. 3,1980 ................. Westvaco Corporation 975,000.00 Sept. 13,1982 ................ The Flintkote Company 319,377.00 On April 25, 1980, a proposed settlement on behalf of the entire plaintiff class was reached with defendant Fibre Box Association (FBA) a trade association of corrugated manufacturers, which provides in substance for a consent decree enjoining the association from holding zone meetings, from publishing price trend information on the basis of the FBA zones or smaller geographical areas, and from accelerating the frequency of its publication of any shipment and price trend statistics. That agreement also provided for the association’s cooperation in the development and presentation of evidence for the jury trial described above. The foregoing description is a summary of the actual settlement agreements, which are available for inspection and copying at the office of the Clerk of the Court, Jesse E. Clark, United States District Court at the Federal Courthouse, 515 Rusk, Houston. Subject to approval of the court, all class members may share in the above settlements, after the deduction of attorneys’ fees and costs, on the basis of the allowable purchases by each class member, regardless of subclass. In addition, separate proposed settlements have been reached on behalf of the two subclasses. On October 5, 1979, representatives of the Container Purchaser Subclass reached a proposed settlement with defendant Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., pursuant to which that defendant has agreed to pay $2,490,000 in settlement of all claims of the plaintiff class members in the Container Purchaser Subclass which are or could be asserted against it in this litigation, including both federal and state antitrust law claims. On May 1, 1980, representatives of the Sheet Plant Subclass reached a proposed settlement with defendant Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., pursuant to which that defendant has agreed to pay $435,000.00 in settlement of all claims of the plaintiff class members in the Sheet Plant Subclass which are or could be asserted against it in this litigation, including both federal and state antitrust law claims. Subject to approval of the court, the members of the Container Purchaser Subclass may share in its settlement with Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., after the deduction of attorneys’ fees and costs, on the basis of the allowable purchases of each subclass member; and members of the Sheet Plant Subclass may share in its settlement with Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., after the deduction of attorneys’ fees and costs, on the basis of the allowable purchases by each subclass member. Injunctive relief is also part of the proposed settlements on behalf of the subclasses. The settlement agreements with defendants Packaging Corporation of America and Alton Box Board Company each provide for the entry of a decree enjoining such defendants from directly or indirectly, pursuant to an unlawful conspiracy, combination, agreement or understanding: (i) Exchanging prices or price formulae or fixing, depressing, stabilizing, or otherwise maintaining prices for the sale of corrugated sheets to members of the Sheet Plant Subclass; (ii) Dividing, allocating or otherwise apportioning sheet plant customers or markets composed of sheet plant customers; (iii) Refraining from soliciting or dealing with sheet plant customers for corrugated sheets; or (iv) Predatorily pricing corrugated sheets in relation to corrugated containers or corrugated containers in relation to corrugated sheets. This consent decree also enjoins those Settling Defendants to which it applies from predatory pricing with respect to corrugated sheets and containers in relation to one another for the purpose of monopolizing, conspiring to monopolize or attempting to monopolize any relevant geographic market for corrugated sheets or containers in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Several of the proposed settlements provide that upon approval of the court a portion of the settlement funds not to exceed $1,310,000 would be made available to defray reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (excluding any attorneys’ fees) incurred by the representative plaintiffs in prosecuting this litigation on behalf of the plaintiff classes. The court has periodically approved the disbursement of such funds in connection with the preparation for and litigating of the jury trial described above. The total amount available has been disbursed. In addition, on July 20, 1982, the court approved the reimbursement of certain assessments paid by plaintiffs’ counsel to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee which were used to partially defray certain expenses of litigation incurred by the Steering Committee and approved by the court as reasonable, to be paid out of the Inland Container settlement fund. The total amount so reimbursed at this time was $1,361,380. On September 17, 1982 the court approved an additional amount of $268,892 to reimburse the Steering Committee for expenses. IV. APPLICATIONS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES The attorneys who represented the plaintiffs and the members of the class, and who advanced the costs and expenses of litigation, have applied to the court for the allowance of attorneys’ fees and unreimbursed expenses for all work done from the inception of the litigation through and including October 31, 1981. Supplementary applications for work done and expenses incurred after October 31,1981 will be filed before the hearing described below. It may be that additional applications for attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be filed after the hearing because of participation of attorneys in the processing of claims of and the distribution of funds to the plaintiff class. Any amounts awarded pursuant to the applications of plaintiffs’ attorneys for fees and expenses will be paid from various settlement funds in an equitable manner to be determined by the court. The fee applications now on file with the court, covering the period through October 31, 1981, request fees of $48,205,421.22 and expenses of $1,491,839.45. This amounts to approximately ten percent of the settlement funds and interest obtained to date. The Fee Committee, appointed by this court on February 18, 1982 and comprised of two lawyers and a businessman not otherwise associated with this litigation, has made certain recommendations which the court has adopted and included in this Notice. The Fee Committee will advise the court throughout the hearing conducted on attorneys’ fees. At the hearing, the court will consider evidence of fees charged and collected by counsel representing defendants in this litigation to assist the court to establish a reasonable hourly charge for attorney time. The fee petitions filed are few in number. A joint petition filed by a majority of plaintiffs’ counsel requests the bulk of fees and expenses. The remainder are the subject of petitions filed separately by other plaintiffs’ counsel. There are a total of 51 affidavits accompanying the fee petitions filed by plaintiffs’ counsel. The fee petitions and accompanying affidavits by individual firms are available for inspection by class members during regular business hours at the following locations: Jesse E. Clark, Clerk United States District Court Federal Courthouse 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 Susman, Godfrey & McGowan 1200 Milam, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77002 V. PROPOSED PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION Counsel for the class propose that the money from the above described settlements on behalf of the class be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members based on valid claims of allowable purchases. Counsel for the class propose that the Southwest Forest settlement funds obtained on behalf of the respective subclasses be distributed pro rata to subclass members based on valid claims of allowable purchases. An “allowable purchase” is a purchase of corrugated containers or sheets from any defendant or subsidiary or affiliate or any defendant (as listed in Schedule A at the end of this notice) during the period January 1, 1960 through December 31, 1978. A valid claim form must be completed listing your purchases from any defendant during the period from 1960 through 1978 for you to receive your pro rated share of the settlement fund. The proposed plan of distribution and any disbursements to plaintiff class members are subject to approval of the court, and will be made on the basis of allowable purchases by class members from the proceeds of the settlements after the deduction of court-approved attorneys’ fees and expenses. VI. CLAIMS PROCEDURE If you have previously filed a claim form in connection with the prior settlements described in the Notice dated August 1, 1979, you may rely upon that claim which will be deemed to have been filed in connection with the present settlements as well. In that event you need do nothing further at this time. If you rely upon your previously filed claim, the release and covenant not to sue contained therein will be deemed to apply to the eleven additional defendants whose settlements are described in Sections II and III of this Notice. You had agreed not to sue settled defendant companies in this litigation. Accordingly, if you choose to so rely upon your previously-filed claim, in consideration of your right to receive a share of the settlement funds, you shall be deemed to have covenanted not to sue all settled defendants including The Mead Corporation, The Flintkote Company, Packaging Corporation of America, Fibreboard Corporation, Georgia Pacific Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Alton Box Board Company, Westvaco Corporation, Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., and The Fibre Box Association and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (as listed in Schedule A of this Notice), and any of their present or former respective officers, directors, or employees, but no other persons or entities, under the antitrust laws of the United States or of any other state or other jurisdiction or any similar statutory or common law asserting claims which have been, might have been, are now or could be asserted in these actions in connection with corrugated containers and corrugated sheets arising during the time period 1960 through 1978, or which relate to or arise out of the unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of corrugated containers or sheets alleged in the Unified and Consolidated Complaint on file in M.D.L. 310, as amended. If you are a member of the class, but did not submit a claim in connection with the prior settlements, you may nonetheless share in the additional settlements described in this Notice, but not the prior settlements, by completing the attached claim form and returning it to the following address, postmarked on or before December 8, 1982: Claims Processing 2100 Travis Suite 510 Houston, Texas 77002 VII. HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS, ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION Any class member opposing, commenting on, or supporting the settlement agreements, attorneys’ fees, and/or plan of distribution shall file a memorandum detailing any specific objections, comments or support thereof on or before November 12, 1982 with the clerk of this court. The court will hold a hearing at the Federal Courthouse, Houston, Texas, on November 19, 1982, at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether the proposed settlements and plan of distribution should be approved. Immediately after that hearing, on the same day, the court will hold a'conference to establish procedures for an evidentiary hearing on attorneys’ fees. That evidentiary hearing on attorneys’ fees will be held at the Federal Courthouse, Houston, Texas, on November 29, 1982, at 9:30 a.m., and will consider the extent to which the applications for attorneys’ fees and expenses should be approved as fair and reasonable. Members of the class or either subclass may appear and be heard at the above hearings as to any objections they may have to the proposed settlements, plan of distribution and attorneys’ fees, only if they file their objections and supporting papers, detailing the nature and reasons for such objections, with the clerk of this court by mail postmarked on or before November 12, 1982. In addition, all class members wishing to be heard at the hearing on November 29, 1982, must comply with procedures established at the conference on November 19, 1982, following the hearing on the settlements, at the Federal Courthouse, Houston, Texas. The hearings may be adjourned from time to time without further notice to the class. Copies of any objections filed regarding settlements and plan of distribution must also be served upon the following: The Honorable John V. Singleton, Jr. United States Courthouse Room 11144 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 Stephen D. Susman, Esq. Chairman, Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Susman, Godfrey & McGowan 1200 Milam, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77002 John D. Roady, Esq. Chairman, Settling Defendants’ Coordinating Committee Hutcheson & Grundy Two Allen Center Houston, Texas 77002 A class member who has no objections to the proposed settlements and plan of distribution does not need to do anything further to indicate his approval. Copies of any objections and all supporting papers filed regarding any fee applications must be served upon the following: The Honorable John V. Singleton, Jr. United States Courthouse Room 11144 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 Stephen D. Susman, Esq. Chairman of Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Susman, Godfrey & McGowan 1200 Milam, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77002 and upon each firm to whose application objection is made, all by mail postmarked before November 12,1982. VIII. GENERAL MATTERS 1. All documents which you desire to file of record in this case, including any questions or inquiries, should be addressed to: Jesse E. Clark, Clerk United States District Court United States Courthouse 515 Rusk Avenue . Houston, Texas 77002 All documents filed with the Clerk of the Court should refer to the name and number of this section: “In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 310.” 2. This Notice is not all-inclusive. For the full details of the matters discussed in this Notice, including the settlement agreements and petitions for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and for further information concerning this litigation, you may desire to refer to the pleadings and other papers filed with the court in this litigation, all of which may be examined and copied at any time during regular office hours at the office of the Clerk of the Court. Dated: September 17, 1982 /s/ JESSE E. CLARK Jesse E. Clark, Clerk United States District Court 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 Supplier Code (for use on claim form) Defendant Subsidiaries, Affiliates, Other Trade Names, etc. 01 Alton Box Board Company none 02 Boise Cascade Corporation Blue Ridge Container Co. Boise Cascade Corrugated Container Division Helper Box Division Housatonic Corrugated Box Co. Seaboard Container Co. The Waterbury Corrugated Container Co. Waterbury Container Co. 03 Champion International Corporation (See Hoerner Waldorf/Champion International Corporation) 04 Chesapeake Corporation of Virginia Baltimore Box Company Binghamton Container Co., Inc. David Weber Co. Miller Container Corporation Scranton Corrugated Box Company, Inc. Southern Corrugated Box Corporation Supplier Code (for use on claim form) Defendant Subsidiaries, Affiliates, Other Trade Names, etc. 05 Consolidated Packaging Corporation Allied Corrugated Container Company (now Consolidated Packaging Flint, Inc.) Battle Creek Box, Inc. Better Boxes, Inc. Certified Box Company Chippewa Paper Products Company Consolidated Paper Company Custom Made Container Company East Chippewa Paper Products, Co., Inc. Items For Industry Lanzit Corrugated Box Company Memphis Corrugated Container Corporation, Inc. Meyers Corrugated Box Company (Cleveland Division) Outerbelt Container Co., Inc. Southern Container Corporation 06 Container Corporation of America The Mengel Company 07 The Continental Group, Inc. Continental Can Company, Inc. Continental Forest Products, Corrugated Division Continental Forest Industries, Corrugated Division 08 Coreo, Inc. none 09 Crown Zellerbach Corporation none 10 Diamond International Corporation Buffalo Containers, Inc. Diamond Container Division Mohawk Containers, Inc. 11 Dura-Containers, Inc. Bluegrass Containers, Inc. Dura-Crates, Inc. Tag Container Co., Inc. 12 Fibreboard Corporation Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. 13 Georgia Pacific Corporation Georgia Pacific Paper Company Griffin Container & Supply Co. 14 Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Atlanta Container Company of Georgia Bay Container Company Briggs Packaging Corp. Briggs Packaging Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Chicago Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Custom Packaging Corp. Custom Packaging Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Fairfield Container Company First Container Corporation Fort Worth Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Fremont Container Company Fremont Container Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Green Bay Box Company Supplier Code (for use on claim form) Defendant Subsidiaries, Affiliates, Other Trade Names, etc. Jackson Container Corporation Jackson Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Kalamazoo Container Company Kalamazoo Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Stevens Container Corp. Wausau Division of Green Bay Packaging, Inc. Twin Cities Container Corporation 15 Hoerner Waldorf/Champion Hoerner Boxes, Inc. International Corporation Hoerner Waldorf Division (of Champion International Corp.) Waldorf Paper Products Co. 16 Inland Container Corporation Anderson Box Company Anderson House American Forest Products Corporation Broward Feed and Grain Company Container Systems, Inc. Delmarva Containers Fibre-Packaging Paper Products, Inc. John J. Carroll Company Fruit and Produce Packing Company H & R Box Company J. Don Hall Company Hayes Supply Company Interstate Supply Company Pacific Kraft Corporation, Candalaus, Inc. Polygal, Inc. Rice, True and Rice Schuyler Millham and Sons Southeastern Bag and Crate Weathers Packaging York Container 17 International Paper Company none 18 Interstate Container Corporation Interstate Container Corporation of Massachusetts Interstate Container Corporation of Connecticut 19 Longview Fibre Downing Box Company General Fibre Box Company 20 MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc. MacMillan Bloedel Packaging, Ltd. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. 21 The Mead Corporation none 22 Menasha Corporation Carlin Container Crown Corrugating Hartford Container Ohio Valley Container Twin Cities Container Corporation Wisconsin Container 28 Olinkraft, Inc. Forest Products Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. Supplier Code (for use on Subsidiaries, Affiliates, claim form) Defendant Other Trade Names, etc. 24 Owens-Illinois, Inc. Forest Products Corporation National Container of California Northeast Container Owens-Illinois Glass Company Seaboard Container 25 Packaging Corporation of America Commonwealth Container Corp. Detroit Container Corporation Eastern Corrugated Container Corp. Northwestern Corrugated Box Company Potomac Container Corporation Superior Box & Bag Company, Inc. 26 Potlach Corporation Potlatch Forest, Inc. 27 St. Joe Paper Company none 28 St. Regis Paper Company Pollock Container Corporation 29 Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. Allied Corrugated Container Co. Continental Box Co. Fox Valley Box Co. General Box Company O’Connor Container Co. Positive Container Co. Premier Container Riverside Box Co. Spartan Corrugated Box Co. Thompson Container Co. 80 Stone Container Corporation Ace Box Co., Inc. Albert Corrugated Box Corp. Cameo Container Corp. Charter Oak Container Corp. Grand City Container Corp. Gulf Container Corp. Kraft Corrugated Container, Inc. Leonson Corrugated Box Co. Maryland Corrugated Box Corp. National Packaging Corp. Penn Central Container, Inc. Stone Container Corp. (IL) Stone Container Corp. (PA) Stone Container Corp. (MI) Stone Container Corp. (MO) Tarheel Container Corp. 31 Union Camp Corp. Allied Container Corp. 32 U.S. Corrugated Fibrebox Company U.S. Corrugated Division of Lacy Diversified Industries, Inc. U.S. Packaging Company U.S. Corrugated Fibrebox Company of Alabama 33 Western Kraft East, Inc. none 34 Westvaco Corporation Westvaco Container Division, Inc. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company 35 Weyerhaeuser Company Corr-Vac Double-Quad Fiberock Fibre-Kor Supplier Code (for use on claim form) Defendant Subsidiaries, Affiliates, Other Trade Names, etc. Ice-O-Box Hydro-Corr Multi-Gal Pull-Tab PVL Quad Quad-Lock Tex-Lock Tex-Lock II The Keickhefer-Eddy Division of Weyerhaeuser Timber Uni wrap Valley Corrugated Box Weyerhaeuser Hawaii Company Weyerhaeuser Southern Company 36 Willamette Industries, Inc. Pac-Rite Western Kraft Corporation Western Corrugated, Inc. 37 The Plintkote Company Hankins Container Division Western Packaging Division CORRUGATED CONTAINER ANTITRUST LITIGATION CLAIM PROCESSING CHECKLIST GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Type or use black ballpoint pen. 2. Print legibly. 3. Copy your completed form and keep for reference. 4. Read all instructions carefully. 5. Purchases from sellers other than defendants or subsidiaries or affiliates listed in Schedule A of the notice will not be allowed as the basis of claims. 6. Exclude all non-allowable purchases from the supplier data, yearly totals and total of all purchases. 7. Do not enter purchase data outside the available boxes on Schedule I. If more than six suppliers are reported, submit additional suppliers on copies of Schedule I. In Re CORRUGATED CONTAINER ANTITRUST LITIGATION Claims Processing 2100 Travis, Suite 510 Houston, Texas 77002 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF CLAIM SECOND GROUP OF SETTLEMENTS The documents relied upon to support this claim will be retained by claimant and will be available for inspection by the court or its appointee. The undersigned represents and warrants that the statements made herein and the figures set forth herein are true. (name and title of person authorized to (name of class member filing Veriexecute Verified Statement of Claim on tied Statement of Claim) Behalf of class member named above) IMPORTANT To participate in distribution of the settlements, return the claim form as described below. (1) Detach a completed claim form by tearing along the perforation on pages 15 through 20. (2) Place pages 15 through 20 in envelope and mail to Claims Processing, 2100 Travis, Suite 510, Houston, Texas 77002. Be sure that the address label on page 20 is correct and is included in material that you mail. The claim form must be mailed with postmark dated no later than December S, 1982. VERIFICATION Notary Public ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS This cause comes on to be heard on class plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of settlements with eleven defendants in this multidistrict litigation which is based upon allegations of price-fixing within the corrugated container industry. The settlements before the court for final approval total approximately $66 million. Twenty-two million dollars of these settlements have been deposited in Houston banks and are earning interest. The remaining $44 million will be paid out over a period of six years, and will accrue interest. By the end of this year, these settlements, along with settlements previously approved, will have a present value of over $550 million. The settlements to be approved are listed as follows: Date of Settlement Defendant Agreement Amount October 5,1979 Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. $ 2,925,000.00 March 30,1980 Packaging Corporation of America $ 8,000,000.00 April 2,1980 Fibreboard Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Potlatch Corporation $ 3,000,000.00 April 25,1980 Fibre Box Association injunctive relief only Date of Settlement Defendant Agreement Amount June 26,1980 Crown Zellerbaeh Corporation $ 1,000,000.00 July 11,1980 Alton Box Board Company $ 5,400,000.00 Sept. 3,1980 Westvaco Corporation $ 975,000.00 Sept. 13,1982 The Flintkote Company $ 319,377.00 Sept. 14,1982 The Mead Corporation $45,000,000.00 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides: “A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that “in determining whether to approve a proposed settlement, the cardinal rule is that the District Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.... ” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977). Accord, In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 643 F.2d 195, 197 (5th Cir.1981). Further, the Manual for Complex Litigation advises courts on the “Criteria and Procedure for Approving Class Action Settlements.” § 1.46 (5th ed. 1982). Following these directives, these settlements were preliminarily approved by this court at a hearing held on September 14, 1982. No objections were made to the settlements at that hearing. Class notices delineating the facts of the settlements and advising of the hearing on final approval were mailed to class members. Order; Notice to the Members of the Plaintiff Class, Purchasers of Corrugated Containers and Sheets, In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 310 September 17, 1982. Subsequently, a hearing on final approval was held on November 19, 1982. Neither class members nor other parties to these settlements objected to the gross amount of the settlements. Conversely, a number of class members expressly supported these settlements at the final hearing. Accordingly, based on the court’s experience and knowledge of this litigation, appraisal of the factors involved in the settlements, and concern to act in the best interest of the class, the court hereby approves these settlements finding them to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and sets forth findings of facts and conclusions of law which support this approval. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION A. The Civil Complaints This litigation began on March 7, 1977, with the filing of the first of 51 class complaints which were subsequently consolidated before the court by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 447 F.Supp. 468 (J.P.M.L.1977). The complaints, which named 37 defendants, alleged that, since at least January 1, 1960, the defendants had engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of corrugated containers and sheets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. On September 6, 1978, the court certified a class of all persons in the United States who purchased corrugated containers or corrugated sheets from any defendant between January 1, 1960, and January 25, 1978. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 80 F.R.D. 244 (S.D.Tex.), mandamus denied, No. 78-3684 (5th Cir.1978). The court subsequently divided the single class into two subclasses: one composed of sheet plant purchasers and the other comprised of all other purchasers of corrugated containers and sheets. Pretrial Order No. 7, December 26, 1978. B. The Companion Criminal Cases The civil complaints were precipitated by a federal grand jury investigation which culminated on January 25, 1978, in two indictments — one misdemeanor and one felony — charging 14 companies and 26 individuals with participating in a conspiracy east of the Rocky Mountains to fix prices of corrugated containers and sheets. United States v. International Paper Co., No. H-78-11, and United States v. Boise Cascade Corp., No. H-78-12. The basic allegations in the criminal cases were substantially similar to those in the civil cases, although the civil cases were broader in scope. Almost all of the defendants pleaded nolo contendere. The Mead Corporation, (Mead); The Continental Group, Inc. (Continental Group), and seven individuals entered pleas of not guilty and proceeded to trial on January 22, 1979. Three months later, on April 27, 1979, these defendants were acquitted by jury verdict. C. Settlements with Other Defendants in the Civil Cases That Received Final Approval Prior to the criminal trial, plaintiffs negotiated settlements with 24 defendants. This court found those settlements to be fair, adequate and reasonable and, on December 21, 1979, gave final approval to them. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 1980-1 Trade Cas. ¶ 63,163 (S.D.Tex.1979). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit remanded for the purpose of having this court enter additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust L