In Jeld-Wen Inc. v. AGC America et al., Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Donetta W. Ambrose denied AGC America Inc. and Guardian Industries Corp.’s motion for summary judgment, allowing door and window manufacturer Jeld-Wen Inc. to present its price-fixing claims to the jury. Jeld-Wen sued AGC and five other flat glass manufacturers, claiming that between July 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006, defendants, while controlling approximately 75 percent of the U.S. construction flat glass market, agreed to implement bogus energy surcharges and other price increases to unlawfully fix flat glass prices. Defendants moved for summary judgment. In opposing defendants’ motion, Jeld-Wen presented communications between the defendants suggesting that pricing for flat glass was low during the relevant period, along with expert witness testimony that the surcharges and price increases were coordinated and not the result of increased manufacturing costs and other market conditions. In denying defendants summary judgment, the court held that although plaintiff’s evidence of alleged collusion is weak, it would be up to the jury to decide whether the price hikes were the result of a price-fixing conspiracy.
The allegations in this suit mirror a class action brought by six other direct purchasers of glass products, where the defendants reached settlements totaling more than $22.3 million. Jeld-Wen opted out of this class action prior to filing its own suit.