In re: U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litigation
US Foodservice Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Catholic Healthcare West, Tomas & King, Inc., Waterbury Hospital o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, Cason Inc., o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, Frankie's Franchise Sys Inc., o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Koninklijke Ahold N.V., Gordon Redgate, Brady Schoefield, Defendants.
Argued: May 29, 2013
Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Droney, J.) certifying a nationwide class of 75, 000 cost-plus customers of U.S. Foodservice, Inc. on claims pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, and state contract law. Because the district court conducted a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 requirements, see Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23, and did not abuse its discretion in determining that common issues of fact and law would predominate over individualized issues and that a class action is a superior mechanism for litigating these claims, we Affirm.
Ryan Phair, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D.C. (James E. Hartley, Jr., Drubner, Hartley & Hellman; Richard Laurence Macon, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC; Richard Leslie Wyatt, Jr., Hunton & Williams LLP, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Glenn M. Kurtz (Douglas P. Baumstein, on the brief), White & Case LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Straub, Livingston, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge:
This case concerns allegations of fraudulent overbilling by U.S. Foodservice, Inc. ("USF"), the country's second largest food distributor whose customers have included the United States government, as well as hospitals, schools, restaurant chains, and small businesses across the United States. This interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide class consisting of about 75, 000 USF "cost-plus" customers. The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that USF devised and executed a fraud to overbill these customers in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, and state and tribal contract law. Despite the size of the class and the fact that it implicates the laws of multiple jurisdictions, the district court correctly concluded that both the RICO and contract claims are susceptible to generalized proof such that common issues will predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's certification of this class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
A. USF and Cost-Plus Pricing
Defendant-Appellant USF was a relatively small player in the food distribution industry in the early 1990s, but by 2000 had tripled in size and become the country's second largest food distributor with over 250, 000 customers, 75, 000 of whom comprise the class here. USF purchases food products, including meats, seafood, produce, and condiments, from suppliers and in turn sells the items to its customers. USF distributes national brands, such as Heinz and Sara Lee, under their own label; non-branded goods, usually meats and produce; and its own private label brands, which are designed to compete with national brands and require USF to invest in marketing, branding, and similar services.
USF sells many of its food products on a cost-plus basis that is common in the industry. Under this pricing model, the final cost to the customer is computed based on the "cost" (also "landed cost" or "delivered cost"), meaning the price at which USF purchases the goods from its supplier, and the "plus, " or additional surcharge that USF charges on top of the cost, often expressed as a percentage increase over this cost. Thus, when a customer enters into a contract with USF, its contract does not guarantee it a set price such as $1 per pound of coleslaw, but rather a set increase over the cost at which USF will purchase the coleslaw (i.e., a 5% mark-up). If a supplier increases the price of goods to USF, that cost is passed on to the customer. USF's contracts with its cost-plus customers provide various methods for calculating cost: some contracts base cost on nationally-published price lists, for instance, while others dictate that cost is set by USF's distribution centers based on the local market. This class action centers on contracts that set cost based on the "invoice cost, " which refers to the price on the invoice from the supplier to USF.
Finally, promotional allowances – discounts provided to distributors from suppliers generally in exchange for fulfilling certain conditions, such as order minimums – are central to cost-plus pricing in the food service distribution industry. Such allowances are more readily available to large distributors and are offered by many (but not all) suppliers to promote their products. USF's customer contracts typically permit USF to keep the benefit of any promotional allowances for itself and do not require that it pass these savings on to the customer. According to USF, without the right to retain these promotional allowances, it would not be able to realize a profit in an extremely competitive market with razor thin margins.
B. The Alleged Fraud and Its Discovery
Plaintiffs allege that USF, beginning at least as early as 1998, engaged in a fraudulent scheme by which it artificially inflated the cost component of its cost-plus billing and then disguised the proceeds of its own inflated billing through the use of purported promotional allowances. The scheme centered on six Value Added Service Providers ("VASPs"), which plaintiffs allege were shell companies established and controlled by USF for the purpose of fraudulently inflating USF's cost to its customers. According to plaintiffs, USF executives Mark Kaiser (who was convicted of securities fraud stemming from a separate fraudulent scheme orchestrated while at USF, see United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2010)) and Tim Lee created the VASPs and installed two confederates, Gordon Redgate and Brady Schofield, in leadership positions at the VASPs in order to hide USF's involvement and control. Though Redgate and Schofield ostensibly owned the VASPs, USF funded the VASPs with multi-million dollar, interest-free loans. As noted by the district court, USF retained irrevocable assignment of the VASP shares, controlled "to whom and when the VASPs made payments, " and guaranteed their payments to suppliers.
According to plaintiffs, the purpose of the VASPs was not to provide legitimate services, but to permit USF to overcharge its customers via the generation of fraudulent marked-up invoices that misrepresented USF's cost for the goods provided to its customers. USF allegedly negotiated the purchase of goods from suppliers without input from the VASPs. USF then directed suppliers to bill goods to the VASPs, but often to deliver them directly to USF.The VASPs then generated a second invoice, ostensibly to "sell" the goods to USF, using a higher price dictated by Kaiser or Lee. USF purported to pay the VASPs and then used the higher VASP prices in setting the landed cost for its cost-plus pricing. USF customers unwittingly paid the inflated amounts and the VASPs then completed the scheme by kicking back the fraudulent mark-ups to USF disguised as legitimate promotional allowances. The VASPs retained nominal transaction fees sufficient to cover operating expenses, including handsome salaries for Redgate and Schofield.
Plaintiffs contend that the operation of the VASP fraud was known only to a small cadre of USF employees. According to plaintiffs, the VASP kickbacks, unlike legitimate promotional allowances, were deposited into a single account that Kaiser and Lee controlled. As for USF customers, they were also kept in the dark. Although some of these customers had the right to audit USF's invoices, the invoices generated by the VASPs revealed nothing about the kickbacks to USF or USF's funding and control of the shell companies. The district court cited evidence, moreover, "that USF actually took steps to conceal the VASP system from its customers." The court's opinion refers, among other things, to a contemporaneous email in which Rob Soule, USF's Chief Accounting Officer, noted that the company's auditors were raising concerns about funds advanced to one of the VASPs: "They do not understand why USF would advance funds to any vendor." Soule further observed that the VASP in question "is not just any 'vendor, ' but we do not want to publicize this fact." J.A. at 623.
In 2000, The Royal Ahold Group ("Ahold") presented USF with a proposal to acquire the rapidly growing company. In the course of conducting due diligence for the purchase, Paul Ekelschot, head of Ahold's audit committee, sent a memo to members of Ahold's executive board in which he noted that USF used brokers for its private label products in order to earn promotional allowance rebates on these products and "shelter" these rebates from its clients' auditors.The memo concluded that "[t]his technique needs to be researched to assess the tax and legal implications and associated business risks." J.A. at 795. One recipient of the memo, reacting to this information, wrote in the margin "AVISO! MOLTO PELIGROSA, " meaning "Warning! Very Dangerous" in Italian. Ahold nonetheless went forward with the acquisition, and the fraud, according to plaintiffs, thereafter continued.
In January 2003, Ahold management and its auditors, Deloitte & Touche, received an anonymous letter warning that: "US Foodservice . . . ha[s] been requiring some of [its] suppliers to ship product to Ahold companies, but send the invoices to companies which are not owned by Ahold." J.A. at 902. The letter identified three of the VASPs at issue here as companies to which the suppliers were directed to send invoices. Deloitte subsequently conducted an inquiry and produced a memo regarding USF's VASP transactions in which it observed that the "primary beneficiary of the VASP transactions appears to be USF, " but that USF has no legal ownership interest in the VASPs. J.A. at 901. The memo queried whether the VASPs should be consolidated into USF's financial statements and whether "the practice of using the VASP's invoice cost to USF as USF's invoice cost for billing customers under cost plus contracts create[s] any legal exposure." Id.
Ahold thereafter procured a letter from its outside counsel, White & Case, concluding that USF faced no "serious exposure to damages from any potential claims arising from USF's use of VASPs." J.A. at 927. The opinion, however, was based on assurances from USF, inter alia: that USF had no affiliation with the VASPs and none of its officers, directors, or employees had any ties, directly or indirectly, with them; that "[t]itle to products procured for USF by a VASP pass[ed] through the VASP"; that USF's cost-plus customers were "aware that USF is utilizing the VASPs to service their account"; and, finally, that the VASPs provided valuable services, that USF had "legitimate business reasons for outsourcing certain functions to independent VASPs, " and that there was "no improper motive" behind the arrangement. Id. White & Case withdrew the letter in March 2003, citing "reason to doubt whether the assumptions on which we based our conclusions are valid." J.A. at 939.
Also in 2003, following the discovery of other accounting irregularities at USF, Ahold's audit committee retained the law firm of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg, which in turn engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC") to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation of USF to address, among other things, whether consolidation of the VASPs was required and "whether legal issues exist relative to cost-plus contracts vis a vis VASP passback earnings." PwC's subsequent report concluded that USF effectively controlled the VASPs, which raised "significant questions" concerning USF's potential liability to its cost-plus customers; PwC concluded that USF's control of the VASPs "clearly required" consolidation. J.A. at 1258, 1295.
On October 17, 2003, Ahold publicly disclosed the VASP system and consolidated the VASPs into restated financial statements for the relevant years. Its filings outlined the financial relationship between USF and the VASPs, asserted that the "VASPs provide varying degrees of support to USF, " and concluded that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles "require the recognition . . . of the VASPs within [Ahold's] consolidated financial statements." J.A. at 2684. Shortly thereafter, Ahold ordered USF to phase out its use of VASPs. It subsequently sold the company for $7.1 billion, agreeing to indemnify USF for any liability to cost-plus customers over $40 million arising from the VASP scheme.
C. The Class Action
The first lawsuit against USF in the wake of Ahold's disclosures was filed by Waterbury Hospital, a community and teaching hospital in Connecticut. Other plaintiffs followed suit, including Thomas & King, the owner and operator of 88 Applebee's franchises, and Catholic Healthcare West, the largest not-for-profit hospital system in California. The pending cases were found to involve "common factual questions concerning the propriety of USF's performance of cost-plus contracts" and were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Connecticut, see In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litig., 528 F.Supp.2d 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2007), after which a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. The district court subsequently denied USF's motion to dismiss the RICO and breach-of-contract claims. See In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., Nos. 3:07-md-1894, 3:06-cv-1657, 3:08-cv-4, 3:08-cv-5, 2009 WL 5064468 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2009).
Following class discovery, plaintiffs moved to certify the class on these claims on July 31, 2009. Both sides submitted considerable evidence at the class certification stage, including representative samples of the contracts at issue, evidence as to the structure, operation, and concealment of the VASPs, and competing expert testimony on industry standards and damages calculations. USF argued, in particular, that the VASPs provided legitimate services; that because VASPs are common in the industry, customers were aware that USF could set cost in the manner it did; and that its customers based their purchasing decisions on the total prices USF charged – which were competitive with the prices available from competitors – and not on a belief that the "cost" component of USF's invoice price reflected the price at which the supplier provided the goods.
After hearing oral arguments, the district court granted the motion for class certification in full and ...