Fishers company agrees to pay $5.5M in concrete case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The last defendant in a long-running concrete price-fixing lawsuit has agreed to pay $5.5 million in an out-of-court settlement that still needs the approval of a federal judge.

The agreement with Builder’s Concrete & Supply of Fishers will be submitted to the court for preliminary approval this week and likely will be finalized this summer, said Irwin Levin, managing partner of Cohen & Malad LLP, the lead law firm for the lawsuit plaintiffs.

The settlement brings the total recovery from seven companies in the case to more than $60 million, which will be shared by more than 5,000 plaintiffs who bought overpriced concrete.

What is unusual about the settlements, Levin said, is that every company involved in the class-action suit will receive the entire amount it overpaid in the price-fixing scheme.

“These are really historical settlements, because we are told that no anti-trust case in Indiana has ever returned 100 percent of the overcharge for claiming class members,” he said. “So we’re really proud.”

As part of the final settlement, Builder’s has agreed to pay the $5.5 million in installments of $1.1 million spread over five years, Levin said. If the company should miss a payment, plaintiffs automatically receive a judgment of $90 million.

The first checks from the settlements are expected to be mailed in May, Levin said.

The final settlement with Builder’s Concrete & Supply follows a federal judge’s decision last week to award Levin and his team additional attorney fees that drive the total take to nearly $18 million.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker signed off on the new fees after Indianapolis-based Duke Realty Co. opposed a request to award an additional $9.7 million in attorney fees, calling the amount excessive.

Duke, one of the plaintiffs in the antitrust class-action lawsuit, had complained that the lawyers who had waged the five-year fight on its behalf would walk away with too large a windfall.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I took Bruce's comments to highlight a glaring issue when it comes to a state's image, and therefore its overall branding. An example is Michigan vs. Indiana. Michigan has done an excellent job of following through on its branding strategy around "Pure Michigan", even down to the detail of the rest stops. Since a state's branding is often targeted to visitors, it makes sense that rest stops, being that point of first impression, should be significant. It is clear that Indiana doesn't care as much about the impression it gives visitors even though our branding as the Crossroads of America does place importance on travel. Bruce's point is quite logical and accurate.

  2. I appreciated the article. I guess I have become so accustomed to making my "pit stops" at places where I can ALSO get gasoline and something hot to eat, that I hardly even notice public rest stops anymore. That said, I do concur with the rationale that our rest stops (if we are to have them at all) can and should be both fiscally-responsible AND designed to make a positive impression about our state.

  3. I don't know about the rest of you but I only stop at these places for one reason, and it's not to picnic. I move trucks for dealers and have been to rest areas in most all 48 lower states. Some of ours need upgrading no doubt. Many states rest areas are much worse than ours. In the rest area on I-70 just past Richmond truckers have to hike about a quarter of a mile. When I stop I;m generally in a bit of a hurry. Convenience,not beauty, is a primary concern.

  4. Community Hospital is the only system to not have layoffs? That is not true. Because I was one of the people who was laid off from East. And all of the LPN's have been laid off. Just because their layoffs were not announced or done all together does not mean people did not lose their jobs. They cherry-picked people from departments one by one. But you add them all up and it's several hundred. And East has had a dramatic drop I in patient beds from 800 to around 125. I know because I worked there for 30 years.

  5. I have obtained my 6 gallon badge for my donation of A Positive blood. I'm sorry to hear that my donation was nothing but a profit center for the Indiana Blood Center.