BRYSON BURKE
Home
Mission
Board
History
Business Plan
Latest Information
Building Our Drill
Innovation
Photo Album
Satellite Weather
Free News - Sign Guestbook

INVESTING
Investment
Stock Quotes

COMMUNICATION
Press Releases
Newsletter
Current Information
Contact

SITE GEOLOGY
Geology Reports
Site Geologic History
Magnetic Maps Index
Heavy Minerals Index
Grenville Province Index

DIAMOND POLITICS
Blood Diamonds
Kimberley Process

DIAMOND GEOLOGY
Indicator Minerals
Kimberlites
Decay of Kimberlites
Kimberlites & Magnetics
Placer Deposits
Magnetic Reversal
Crustal Thickness
How Diamonds are Made
Glaciation Issues
Mineral Transport Index
Doing the Map Work
Gathering Samples
World Mining Index
Excavation and Recovery
Mining Corporations
Mining News Magazines
Environmental Issues
Diamonds in Space
World's Only MineCam
Live Volcano Geo-Cams

EXPLORATION
Site Exploration History
Topography Map Index
Location Map
Claim Maps Index

DIAMONDS
Diamonds and Graphite
Diamond Formation
Grading Diamonds
Price of Diamonds
Industrial Diamonds
Drilling Equipment
Medical Use of Diamonds
Gemstones
Birthstones
Hall of Fame

DIAMONDS IN CULTURE
Good Books on Diamonds
Cremains to Diamonds
Diamonds in Lawsuits
Irish Diamonds
Unusual Diamond News
Diamonds in the Media
Famous Jewelers
In Advertisements
Top Twenty Cut Diamonds
Top Diamonds
Diamond Lore
Theft/Hoaxes/and Fraud
Religion Index
Diamond/ Culture Index
Television
Movies
Games - Play Now
Music
Weddings
Royals
Our Darlings
Diamond Animal Index

INTERACTIVE
Reflection/Refraction Index
Crossword Puzzle Index
Which Is A Diamond I
Which is a Diamond II
Become a Gemologist

U.S. Class-Action Lawsuit Against De Beers Gains Ground
Rapaport:August 9, 2001

The U.S. District Court of New York has ruled that De Beers has violated a number U.S. antitrust laws from April 1995 through April 2001 and has requested recommendations for class certifications and damages. The decision responds to a class-action antitrust suit filed against De Beers by three New York diamond dealers who purchased diamonds from De Beers sightholders, The suit, filed on April 13 alleges that De Beers unlawfully "controlled the supply and managed the prices of diamonds in the United States" and "ostensibly moved out of the United States to avoid prosecution by the United States Department of Justice."

De Beers is being charged with violation of federal and state antitrust laws, including section 16 of the Clayton Act, sections one and two of the Sherman Act, The Wilson Tariff Act, the Donnelly Act and state and federal common law. The defendants charge that De Beers caused them to overpay for goods described in the complaint.

The suit contends that "De Beers has entered many collusive agreements and undertaken many collusive acts with its partners. This includes agreements made in acts undertaken with numerous De Beers partners that are U.S. citizens or that do substantial business here."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, by Andrew Leider of Brooklyn, and George Vuoso and Robert Hallowell, both from New York City. The defendants named in the suit are Gary Ralfe, anaging director, De Beers; Nick Oppenheimer, chairman, De Beers; De Beers Centenary AG and De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd.