[导读：8月27日，美国联邦上诉法院恢复了铝购买者针对高盛、摩根大通、嘉能可等公司提起的反垄断诉讼案。在这起诉讼中，购买者指控这些公司合谋通过减少供应来提高金属价格。购买者称，在金融危机期间，工业活动减少致铝产品价格下跌。其后，银行、商品交易、矿业和金属仓储公司密谋囤积铝库存，导致订单处理延迟、存储成本增加，最终使得生产橱柜、手电筒、软饮料罐、婴儿推车和其他含铝产品的成本增加。美国曼哈顿第二巡回上诉法院将该案与此前最终商业用户和消费者的案件做了区分，强调后者在8月被驳回是因为最终商业用户和消费者所遭受的损失与反垄断行为之间的联系相距甚远；而铝购买者之所以可以起诉，是因为他们在被告所限制的原铝买卖市场中受到了直接损失。（本文源自路透社。导读系本公众号原创，转载请注明文字出自本公众号。）]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived lawsuits by aluminum purchasers that accused Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, mining company Glencore and other companies of conspiring to drive up prices for the metal by reducing supply.
In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a federal judge erred in dismissing antitrust claims by “direct” purchasers of aluminum such as Novelis, and by other purchasers including Eastman Kodak, Fujifilm and Reynolds Consumer Products.
Purchasers accused banks and commodity trading, mining and metals warehousing companies of conspiring to hoard aluminum inventory earlier this decade, after prices had declined because industrial activity fell during the global financial crisis.
The purchasers said the alleged conspiracy led to delays in processing orders and higher storage costs, ultimately inflating the cost to produce cabinets, flashlights, soft drink cans, strollers and other goods containing aluminum.
Lawyers for the defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Writing for the appeals court, Circuit Judge Pierre Leval said the purchasers could sue because they claimed to suffer harm in a market that the defendants allegedly restrained, the market to buy and sell primary aluminum.
He distinguished them from commercial end users and consumer end users, whose own antitrust claims were rejected by the appeals court in an August decision because their claimed in juries were too far removed from the alleged misconduct.
Leval faulted U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who has since returned to private practice, for relying on that decision to conclude that any manipulation would have occurred in the warehousing market, not the primary aluminum market.
Unlike the end users, “whose injury was an incidental byproduct of the defendants’ alleged violation, these plaintiffs’ injuries were a direct result of the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct,” Leval wrote.
The cases were returned to the federal court in Manhattan, where they are now overseen by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.
“We’re pretty excited,” Patrick Coughlin, a lawyer for the direct purchasers, said in an interview.
“Even if manipulation took place in another market, if it were directed toward our clients’ markets and inflated the price of aluminum there, we should be able to bring an antitrust case,” he added. “We’re ready to go to trial.”
Lawyers for Kodak and Fujifilm, and a lawyer for Reynolds, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case is Eastman Kodak Co et al v Henry Bath LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 16-4230, 16-4233, 16-4235, 16-4243, 16-4305 and 16-4308.
--------------------
微信公共号名称：“反垄断实务评论”
微信号：Antitrust_Review
我们致力于提供中国反垄断法最新资讯，包括法规速递、执法机关动态、行政执法、民事诉讼、中外反垄断法交流、学术研究等。提供案例解析、理论介绍、律师实务操作指南，以及原创反垄断法评论和文章，部分内容为中英文双语。欢迎您的关注。
