Plaintiffs in this case allege that Defendants conspired to fix the prices of Korean Noodles in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is known as In re Korean Noodles Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:13-CV-4115-WHO-DMR (N.D. Cal.).
Both the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed complaints alleging that the Defendants conspired to illegally fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of Korean Noodles purchased in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. These Complaints were filed on December 3, 2014 (Amended Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Class Action Complaint) and on March 24, 2014 (Direct Purchaser Consolidated Amended Complaint) (collectively, the "Complaints").
The lawsuit claims that any person or entity that purchased Korean Noodles directly or indirectly from any Defendant during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market. The lawsuit seeks to recover three times the actual damages that Plaintiffs allege the Defendants’ conduct caused, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Samyang, the Settled Defendant, and the Non-Settling Defendants deny any liability.
The lawsuit alleges a Class Period between May 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010.
Both the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed complaints alleging that the Defendants conspired to illegally fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of Korean Noodles purchased in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. These Complaints were filed on December 3, 2014 (Amended Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Class Action Complaint) and on March 24, 2014 (Direct Purchaser Consolidated Amended Complaint) (collectively, the "Complaints").
The lawsuit claims that any person or entity that purchased Korean Noodles directly or indirectly from any Defendant during the Class Period paid a higher price than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market. The lawsuit seeks to recover three times the actual damages that Plaintiffs allege the Defendants’ conduct caused, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Samyang, the Settled Defendant, and the Non-Settling Defendants deny any liability.
The lawsuit alleges a Class Period between May 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Ramyun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongshim
TLDR Apparently they have been rigging their prices. You may be entitled to settlement monies.