Seeking Info on CHEP Quota’s

October 28, 2008 by admin.

As revealed previously, CHEP has permitted the uncontrolled dispersion of millions of its pallets in order to quickly penetrate the U.S. pallet market.  This practice enables CHEP to cleverly shift its cost of collection and recovery onto pallet recyclers and retailers/distributors as the pallets accumulate downstream.  Recent legal action has been initiated on behalf of the pallet recycling industry yet a much larger class of tens of thousands of retailers/distributors are still being forced to sort, segregate, and store pallets with no compensation for their  services.   (Few distributors have the clout or leverage to demand compensation  from CHEP as demonstrated by  Wal-Mart recently. )

 

We are investigating the activities of CHEP as related to its pallet retrieval tactics from downstream retailers and distributors who have no agreement  to return pallets to CHEP. These businesses are often referred to as Non Participating Distributors. (NPD’s)

 

We have information and reason to believe that CHEP  has enlisted, directed  or influenced third party entities (pallet recyclers) to approach and collect CHEP marked pallets from these NPD’s.

 

If you were involved in CHEP’s white wood purchase program and were given a collection quota (verbal or written) for collecting CHEP marked pallets and/or were provided names or lists of NPD’s in order to collect CHEP marked pallets, we would like to hear from you.  Any such information would be helpful.  Please contact us using the feedback email form or leave a message at 479-650-3654.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Class Action Complaint Filed on Behalf of Pallet Recyclers

August 11, 2008 by admin.

Update: A class action complaint was filed Feb 5, 2008 in the US Western District of Arkansas against BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES INC, BRAMBLES NORTH AMERICA, INC dba CHEP on behalf of all pallet recycling companies in the US. See case 2:08-cv-02012-RTD

Posted in NEWS, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

WERE YOU A CHEP EMPLOYEE?

July 12, 2007 by admin.

Have you worked for CHEP USA? Are you familiar with the issues regarding this effort? If you have information that would be helpful in the analysis and preparation of a class action lawsuit against CHEP USA we would like to hear from you.

By Mail: (Documents and evidence can be mailed to the following:)
Coalition of North American Pallet Recyclers Inc.
P.O. Box 8322
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902

By Phone:
1-479-650-3654

By email: Admin@chepclassaction.com

Or by using the feedback form at www.chepclassaction.com

http://www.chepclassaction.com/

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Reporting CHEP Antitrust Activities

July 12, 2007 by admin.

Below is the contact information for the U.S. Department of Justice. Members have reported that this branch has been more prompt in their call backs in order to document the CHEP activities that you feel are unfair or relate to antitrust claims.

Again….for the pallet recyclers who have asked “How may I help?” This is your opportunity to take action. Call them today.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Phone
1-888-647-3258 (toll free in the U.S. and Canada) or 202-307-2040

The US Department of Justice Provides the Following Suggestions on how to File a Complaint. If you have information about a possible antitrust violation or potential anticompetitive activity, they recommend that you use the following questions as a guideline when describing your complaint:

* What are the names of companies, individuals, or organizations that are involved?
* How do you believe they have violated the antitrust laws?
* Can you give examples of the conduct that you believe violates the antitrust laws? If so, please provide as much detail as possible.
* What is the product or service affected by this conduct? Where is the product manufactured or sold, or where is the service provided?
* Who are the major competitors that sell the product or provide the service?
* What is your role in the situation in question?
* Who is harmed by the alleged violations? How are they harmed?

You can also reach them by e-mail or regular mail.

E-mail
antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov

Mail
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Room 3322
Washington, DC 20530

Office of Policy and Evaluation
Room 394
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20580

E- Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov

Posted in HOW YOU CAN HELP | 1 Comment »

REPORTING CHEP’s PRACTICES TO THE FTC

December 5, 2006 by admin.

“The FTC’s antitrust arm, the Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition — including monopolistic practices, attempts to monopolize, conspiracies in restraint of trade, and anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. The Commission’s antitrust authority comes primarily from the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act both passed by Congress in 1914. Prevention of anticompetitive practices allows for unfettered competition in the marketplace. Purchasers benefit from lower prices and greater availability of products and services.

The Bureau carries out this mission by investigating alleged law violations and, when appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal enforcement action. If the Commission does decide to take action, the Bureau will help to implement that decision through litigation in federal court or before administrative law judges. The Bureau also serves as a research and policy resource on competition issues. It prepares reports and testimony for Congress, and may present comments on specific competition issues pending before other agencies. The Bureau of Competition has developed expertise in a number of industries important to consumers, such as health care, other professional services, food, and energy.

The antitrust laws are enforced by both the FTC’s Bureau of Competition and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. In order to prevent duplication of effort, the two agencies consult before opening any case. All criminal antitrust enforcement is handled by the Antitrust Division” From the FTC’s web site.

• Contacting the Bureau of Competition FTC If you have a question or comment about CHEP’s business practices or antitrust issue, please submit it to the Bureau of Competition by one the the methods below. To learn how the FTC may use the information you provide, please read their Privacy Policy. You will be asked to leave a message so please include a day-time telephone number in your communication.

 

Telephone:	(202) 326-3300
Regular Mail:	Office of Policy and Evaluation Room 394 Bureau of Competition Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20580
Electronic Mail:	antitrust@ftc.gov

visit: www.chepclassaction.com for more information.

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

CHEPS PRACTICES REVEALED

November 15, 2006 by admin.

Recent surveys of independent pallet recyclers by the trade publication Pallet Enterprise has shown that most recyclers feel the ARP does not cover their cost, thus many of the recyclers who participate in CHEP’s ARP program do so only out of fear of litigation and reprisals from CHEP USA. This fear is well justified as CHEP has a history of suing recyclers who refuse to agree to their non-negotiable ARP program. CHEP continues its tactics as they are currently involved in five lawsuits with recyclers around the country. This strategy of CHEP’s allows them to extract unfair fees/terms that could not otherwise be possible in a free and open market.

.

 

 

 

 

CHEP knowingly allows rental customers to ship their rental pallets outside of their network to unwilling participants. CHEP bills their customers up-charges when they do this in a range from $3.5 to $8.00 per pallets in addition to their normal transfer fee. Why would CHEP allow this? Here is an obvious explanation which boils down to a strategy that eliminates the competition by preventing the need for a customer to have multiple pallet suppliers.

.

 

 

 

 

CHEP could easily require and maintain that its pallets not be shipped outside of its rental network. This would be a simple and straight forward pallet rental program where CHEP maintains control of its rental pallets throughout the distribution channels and picking them up at the other end. The problem with this is that if CHEP simply rented the pallets they could not totally eliminate the competition.
.

 

 

 

 

Pallets rental service like CHEP bill their customer upwards of $20 if a customers loses a pallet. Obviously the customer would attempt to avoid this fee by not shipping the rental pallet outside of the network and would call upon non-rental pallet suppliers, recyclers, for goods being shipped outside of the agreed network. This is where CHEP uses what has been termed a “disguised sale”. As mentioned the customer would ordinarily turn to non-rental pallet suppliers to provide them with a $6 or $7 dollar pallet rather than be hit with a $20 lost rental pallet fee. CHEP has pre-empted the customers need for other suppliers by adapting and allowing the customer to ship the pallets out of the rental system at a fee ($3.50 to $8.00) that is typical for what 4-way recycled pallet might cost. In this way CHEP can counter any arguments or concerns that the customer may have about having to have multiple vendors, one for regular pallets and another for rental pallets.
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

With this competition killing strategy CHEP strikes a double blow to recyclers. Not only has CHEP eliminated the recyclers from the initial selling phase using this strategy it has a system place to force feed the collection of its lost CHEP rental pallets on to the very same recyclers.

 

 

It could easily be argued that CHEP’s expansion into the US and growth to market dominance could not have been possible without this split strategy. They protect and guard their programs though lawsuits and intimidation. As we have seen no individual recycler will have the resources to individually contest CHEP’s unjust practices…. most recyclers simply cannot afford to fight. This my friend is why our industry must consolidate its legal strategy into a unified class action effort. The damages to independent recyclers are massive on a collective nationwide level at millions upon millions of dollars.  With this amount of money at stake it appears to be enough of an incentive for a large law firm to address the issue.
.

 

 

 

 

 

FOR DETAILS VISIT WWW.CHEPCLASSACTION.COM (This site is currently limited to potential class members and representing attorneys at this time.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

APATHY

November 10, 2006 by admin.

THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESS OF EVIL … IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING…. Edmund Burke

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

RESTRAINT OF FREE TRADE BY CHEP?

November 10, 2006 by admin.

The recent judgments and settlements against/with CHEP are great but they still fall far short of the true value recyclers should be obtaining for these lost/stray pallets. It would appear that if CHEP were saddled with having to pay recyclers only $5.00 for the return of lost pallet they would make out like a bandit. CHEP routinely bills it customers in excess of $20 per pallet for lost or unaccounted for pallets. It also  appears that CHEP structures its agreements with its customers to hinder their ability to avoid these cost. Otherwise they could avoid the cost by relying on independent recyclers to provide them with recovered CHEP pallets. It is commonly reported that CHEP uses the lost pallet fee billing as a leverage tool in negotiation with its customers who are often caught of guard by the enormity of the bill. Recyclers could cut this cost considerably for the customer and be far less than the $20+ fee CHEP charges but more than $5.00 per pallet recovered.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

MOBILIZING A CHEP CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

November 2, 2006 by admin.

This Blog was originally created on November 2, 2006 in association with the site at www.chepclassaction.com. It will will be utilized as a tool to bring the latest updates and information regarding CHEP abuse of recyclers and unfair trade practices.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »