tft lcd class action quotation

The TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigationclass-action lawsuit regarding the worldwide conspiracy to coordinate the prices of Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used to make laptop computers, computer monitors and televisions, between 1999 and 2006. In March 2010, Judge Susan Illston certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly and indirectly purchased TFT-LCDs – for panel purchasers and purchasers of TFT-LCD integrated products; the litigation was followed by multiple suits.

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions, laptop and computer monitors, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, semiconductors and other devices;

In mid-2006, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division requested FBI assistance in investigating LCD price-fixing. In December 2006, authorities in Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States revealed a probe into alleged anti-competitive activity among LCD panel manufacturers.

The companies involved, which later became the Defendants, were Taiwanese companies AU Optronics (AUO), Chi Mei, Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Chunghwa), and HannStar; Korean companies LG Display and Samsung; and Japanese companies Hitachi, Sharp and Toshiba.cartel which took place between January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006, and which was designed to illegally reduce competition and thus inflate prices for LCD panels. The companies exchanged information on future production planning, capacity use, pricing and other commercial conditions.European Commission concluded that the companies were aware they were violating competition rules, and took steps to conceal the venue and results of the meetings; a document by the conspirators requested everybody involved "to take care of security/confidentiality matters and to limit written communication".

Companies directly affected by the LCD price-fixing conspiracy, as direct victims of the cartel, were some of the largest computer, television and cellular telephone manufacturers in the world. These direct action plaintiffs included AT&T Mobility, Best Buy,Costco Wholesale Corporation, Good Guys, Kmart Corp, Motorola Mobility, Newegg, Sears, and Target Corp.Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26) to prevent Defendants from violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), as well as (b) 23 separate state-wide classes based on each state"s antitrust/consumer protection class action law.

In November 2008, LG, Chunghwa, Hitachi, Epson, and Chi Mei pleaded guilty to criminal charges of fixing prices of TFT-LCD panels sold in the U.S. and agreed to pay criminal fines (see chart).

The South Korea Fair Trade Commission launched legal proceedings as well. It concluded that the companies involved met more than once a month and more than 200 times from September 2001 to December 2006, and imposed fines on the LCD manufacturers.

Sharp Corp. pleaded guilty to three separate conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Motorola Inc., and was sentenced to pay a $120 million criminal fine,

Seven executives from Japanese and South Korean LCD companies were indicted in the U.S. Four were charged with participating as co-conspirators in the conspiracy and sentenced to prison terms – including LG"s Vice President of Monitor Sales, Chunghwa"s chairman, its chief executive officer, and its Vice President of LCD Sales – for "participating in meetings, conversations and communications in Taiwan, South Korea and the United States to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD panels; agreeing during these meetings, conversations and communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain predetermined levels; issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached; exchanging information on sales of TFT-LCD panels for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices; and authorizing, ordering and consenting to the participation of subordinate employees in the conspiracy."

On December 8, 2010, the European Commission announced it had fined six of the LCD companies involved in a total of €648 million (Samsung Electronics received full immunity under the commission"s 2002 Leniency Notice) – LG Display, AU Optronics, Chimei, Chunghwa Picture and HannStar Display Corporation.

On July 3, 2012, a U.S. federal jury ruled that the remaining defendant, Toshiba Corporation, which denied any wrongdoing, participated in the conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCDs and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class. Following the trial, Toshiba agreed to resolve the case by paying the class $30 million.

On March 29, 2013, Judge Susan Illston issued final approval of the settlements agreements totaling $1.1 billion for the indirect purchaser’ class. The settling companies also agreed to establish antitrust compliance programs and to help prosecute other defendants, and cooperate with the Justice Department"s continuing investigation.

tft lcd class action quotation

(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co, Sharp Corp and five other makers of liquid crystal displays agreed to pay more than $553 million to settle consumer and state regulatory claims that they conspired to fix prices for LCD panels in televisions, notebook computers and monitors.A worker prepares a display of Sharp flat panel televisions for the 2009 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 7, 2009. REUTERS/Steve Marcus

The settlement is the latest arising from lawsuits alleging the creation of an international cartel designed to illegally inflate prices and stifle competition in LCD panels between 1999 and 2006, affecting billions of dollars of U.S. commerce.

In December 2006, authorities in Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States revealed a probe into alleged anti-competitive activity among LCD panel manufacturers. Many companies and executives have since pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations and paid more than $890 million in fines.

The latest payout includes $538.6 million to resolve claims by “indirect” purchasers that bought televisions and computers with thin film transistor LCDs, as well as claims by eight states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Other defendants have yet to settle, including Taiwan-based AU Optronics Corp, one of the largest LCD panel manufacturers; South Korea’s LG Display Co and Toshiba Corp.

The accord follows a settlement this month by eight companies, including Samsung and Sharp, to pay $388 million to settle litigation by direct purchasers of the LCD panels.

tft lcd class action quotation

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

tft lcd class action quotation

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. Plaintiffs charged that defendants conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products containing those panels for over a decade, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those panels and products.

In March 2010, the Court certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, one class of panel purchasers, and one class of buyers of laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions that contained TFT-LCDs.

Over the course of the litigation, the classes reached settlements with all defendants except Toshiba. The case against Toshiba proceeded to trial. In July 2012, the jury found that Toshiba participated in the price-fixing conspiracy. The case was subsequently settled, bringing the total settlements in the litigation to over $470 million.

tft lcd class action quotation

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

tft lcd class action quotation

WASHINGTON – A Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) producer and seller has agreed to plead guilty and pay $220 million in criminal fines for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of liquid crystal display panels, the Department of Justice announced today.

According to a one-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Chi Mei Optoelectronics participated in a conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide from Sept. 14, 2001, to Dec. 1, 2006. According to the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Chi Mei has agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.

TFT-LCD panels are used in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones and other electronic devices. By the end of the conspiracy period, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was valued at $70 billion. Companies directly affected by the LCD price-fixing conspiracy are some of the largest computer and television manufacturers in the world, including Apple, Dell and HP.

According to the charge, Chi Mei carried out the conspiracy by agreeing during meetings, conversations and communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain pre-determined levels and issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached. As a part of the conspiracy, Chi Mei exchanged information on sales of TFT-LCD panels for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices.

Anyone with information concerning illegal conduct in the TFT-LCD industry is urged to call the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Field Office at 415-436-6660.

tft lcd class action quotation

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 805, "https://s40123.pcdn.co/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg" );jQuery("#gform_ajax_frame_805").on("load",function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find("*").html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf("GF_AJAX_POSTBACK") >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find("#gform_wrapper_805");var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find("#gform_confirmation_wrapper_805").length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf("gformRedirect(){") >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery("html").css("margin-top"), 10) + parseInt(jQuery("body").css("margin-top"), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery("#gform_wrapper_805").html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass("gform_validation_error")){jQuery("#gform_wrapper_805").addClass("gform_validation_error");} else {jQuery("#gform_wrapper_805").removeClass("gform_validation_error");}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery("#gform_wrapper_805").offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window["gformInitDatepicker"]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window["gformInitPriceFields"]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery("#gform_source_page_number_805").val();gformInitSpinner( 805, "https://s40123.pcdn.co/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg" );jQuery(document).trigger("gform_page_loaded", [805, current_page]);window["gf_submitting_805"] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(".GF_AJAX_POSTBACK").html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}setTimeout(function(){jQuery("#gform_wrapper_805").replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery("#gf_805").offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger("gform_confirmation_loaded", [805]);window["gf_submitting_805"] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery("#gform_confirmation_message_805").text());}, 50);}else{jQuery("#gform_805").append(contents);if(window["gformRedirect"]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_post_render", [805, current_page]);} );} );

tft lcd class action quotation

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

tft lcd class action quotation

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

tft lcd class action quotation

Special Masters Order Report and Recommendation of Special Master Re Motions for Attorneys" Fees and Other Amounts by Indirect-Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and State Attorneys General. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Appendix A)(Quinn, Martin) (Filed on 11/9/2012) (Entered: 11/09/2012)

Transcript of Proceedings held on 11-7-12, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Wyatt, Telephone number 925-212-5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/11/2013. (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/11/2012) (Entered: 11/11/2012)

DECLARATION of David Martinez in Opposition to 7126 Clerks Notice In Response to Order regarding Direct Action Plaintiffs" Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 6350 filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., BestBuy.com, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Part 1, # 2 Exhibit 1 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit 1 Part 3, # 4 Exhibit 2-3, # 5 Exhibit 4-5, # 6 Exhibit 6-7)(Related document(s) 7126 ) (Nelson, Laura) (Filed on 11/12/2012) (Entered: 11/12/2012)

Special Masters Order Re Procedures for Objecting to Report and Recommendation Re Attorneys" Fees in Indirect-Purchaser Class Action (No Hrg.). (Quinn, Martin) (Filed on 11/12/2012) (Entered: 11/12/2012)

OBJECTIONS to Report and Recommendation of Special Master re Motions for Attorneys Fees and Other Amounts by Indirect- Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and State Attorneys General and Request for Hearing (November 9, 2012, Docket #7127) by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Steyer, Allan) (Filed on 11/14/2012) (Entered: 11/14/2012)

Declaration of Jill M. Manning in Support of 7153 Objection of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP to Report and Recommendation of Special Master re Motions for Attorneys Fees and Other Amounts by Indirect- Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and State Attorneys General and Request for Hearing (November 9, 2012, Docket #7127) by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Steyer, Allan) (Filed on 11/14/2012) Modified on 11/15/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2012)

Declaration of D. Scott Macrae in Support of 7153 Objection of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP to Report and Recommendation of Special Master re Motions for Attorneys Fees and Other Amounts by Indirect- Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and State Attorneys General and Request for Hearing (November 9, 2012, Docket #7127) by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Steyer, Allan) (Filed on 11/14/2012) Modified on 11/15/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2012)

Transcript of Proceedings held on November 8, 2012, before Judge Susan Illston. Official Court Reporter Joan Marie Columbini, Telephone number 415-255-6842. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 12/6/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/17/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/13/2013. (Columbini, Joan) (Filed on 11/15/2012) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

MOTION for Settlement Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs and Settling States Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental Entity Settlements with AUO, LG Display, and Toshiba Defendants; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 11/29/2012 03:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 11/29/2012. Replies due by 12/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kinsella Decl., # 2 Declaration Nemiec Decl., # 3 Proposed Order)(Scarpulla, Francis) (Filed on 11/15/2012) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

Statement LG Display"s Statement of Compliance With The Class Action Fairness Act by LG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Roth, Jerome) (Filed on 11/15/2012) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

JOINT RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS (re 7158 MOTION for Settlement Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs and Settling States Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental Entity Settlements with AUO, LG Display, and Toshiba Defendants; Memora ) Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs and Settling States Joint Response to Objections to Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental Entity Settlements with AUO, LG Display, and Toshiba Defendants filed byIndirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Clayton Decl., # 3 Exhibit 2 to Clayton Decl., # 4 Exhibit 3 to Clayton Decl., # 5 Exhibit 4 to Clayton Decl., # 6 Exhibit 5 to Clayton Decl., # 7 Exhibit 6 to Clayton Decl., # 8 Exhibit 7 to Clayton Decl., # 9 Exhibit 8 to Clayton Decl., # 10 Exhibit 9 to Clayton Decl., # 11 Exhibit 10 to Clayton Decl., # 12 Exhibit 11 to Clayton Decl., # 13 Exhibit 12 to Clayton Decl., # 14 Exhibit 13 to Clayton Decl., # 15 Exhibit 14 to Clayton Decl., # 16 Exhibit 15 to Clayton Decl.)(Scarpulla, Francis) (Filed on 11/15/2012) Modified on 11/16/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2012)

Response to 6680, 6814, 6932, 6935, 6937, 6691 to (re 6662 MOTION for Attorney Fees Indirect-Purchaser Class Plaintiffs" Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys" Fees and Incentive Awards ) Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs" Response to Objections to IPP Attorneys" Fee Motion filed byIndirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Scarpulla, Francis) (Filed on 11/15/2012) Modified on 11/16/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2012)

DECLARATION OF GERI MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER STANDING AS IPP CLASS MEMBER TO OBJECT TO PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND 683 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES filed byGeri Maxwell. (Related document(s) 6830 ) (Cochran, George) (Filed on 11/15/2012) Modified on 11/16/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/16/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2012)

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 6662 MOTION for Attorney Fees Indirect-Purchaser Class Plaintiffs" Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys" Fees and Incentive Awards, 6830 MOTION for Attorney Fees, 6860 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 6650 MOTION for Attorney Fees STATE ATTORNEYS GENERALS NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND ADDITIONAL COSTS CORRECTED STATE ATTORNEYS GENERALS NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR, 6664 Second MOTION for Settlement : INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. Motion Hearing set for 12/13/2012 04:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2012)

RESPONSE (re 7158 MOTION for Settlement Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs and Settling States Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental Entity Settlements with AUO, LG Display, and Toshiba Defendants; Memora ) LG Display"s Response To Proposed Order On Final Approval of Settlement filed byLG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Roth, Jerome) (Filed on 11/16/2012) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/16/2012, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531-6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/14/2013. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 11/16/2012) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

OBJECTIONS to re 7127 Special Masters Order, MURRAY & HOWARD LLPS NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS AND OBJECTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MASTER RE MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND OTHER AMOUNTS BY INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL by Byron Ho. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DEREK G. HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF MURRAY & HOWARD, LLPS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND OBJECTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MASTER RE MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND OTHER AMOUNTS BY INDIRECT-PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL (DOCKET NO. 7127))(Howard, Derek) (Filed on 11/16/2012) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

MOTION to Join / The Toshiba Entities" Motion to Join ATS Claim, LLC as a Necessary Party to the Direct Purchaser Class Action filed by Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 11/30/2012. Replies due by 12/7/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Martin M. Toto in Support of the Toshiba Entities" Motion to Join ATS Claim, LLC as a Necessary Party to the Direct Purchaser Class Action, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Toto Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Toto Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Toto Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order)(Curran, Christopher) (Filed on 11/16/2012) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

OBJECTIONS to re 7127 Special Masters Order, Report and Recommendation of Special Master Re Motions for Attorney"s Fees and Other Amounts by Indirect-Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and State Attorneys Gneral; Declaration of Adam C. Belsky by Albert Wong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Gross, Terry) (Filed on 11/16/2012) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Setting Hearing on Best Buy"s Motion to Consolidate Action with Track 1A filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., BestBuy.com, L.L.C., Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc.. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 11/19/2012) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

OBJECTIONS to re 7127 Special Masters Order, 7134 Special Masters Order [Objection of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP to Special Master"s Report and Recommendation Re Attorneys" Fees In Indirect-Purchaser Class Action] by Michael J. Eliav. (Kupfer, Susan) (Filed on 11/19/2012) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

MOTION for Settlement Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlements with AUO and Toshiba Defendants filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 12/14/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eric B. Fastiff in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of Settlements with AUO Defendants and Toshiba Defendants, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Fastiff Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Fastiff Declaration, # 4 Declaration of Robin M. Niemiec in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of Settements with AUO and Toshiba Defendants, # 5 Exhibit A to Niemiec Declaration, # 6 Exhibit B to Niemiec Declaration, # 7 Exhibit C to Niemiec Declaration, # 8 Exhibit D to Niemiec Declaration, # 9 Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement and Entering Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendants Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., # 10 Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement and Entering Final Judgment Of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics America)(Heimann, Richard) (Filed on 11/30/2012) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

Proposed Order re 7267 MOTION for Settlement Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlements with AUO and Toshiba Defendants Corrected Proposed Order Regarding Settlement with AUO Defendants by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Heimann, Richard) (Filed on 11/30/2012) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/30/12, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Sahar Bartlett, CSR, RPR, Telephone number (415) 626-6060/sahar_bartlett@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/4/2013. (Bartlett, Sahar) (Filed on 12/3/2012) (Entered: 12/03/2012)

(SEE ORDER Dkt. No. 7272). Set/Reset Deadlines as to 6662 MOTION for Attorney Fees Indirect-Purchaser Class Plaintiffs" Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys" Fees and Incentive Awards, 7200 Third Party MOTION for Attorney Fees BY OBJECTORS, 6830 MOTION for Attorney Fees, 6860 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 6650 MOTION for Attorney Fees STATE ATTORNEYS GENERALS NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND ADDITIONAL COSTS CORRECTED STATE ATTORNEYS GENERALS NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR, 6664 Second MOTION for Settlement : INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. Motion Hearing set for 1/31/2013 04:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

REDACTION to 7282 Order Granting Motion to File Under Seal,, Terminate Motions, 7285 Document E-Filed Under Seal,, Toshiba Entities" Motion to Dismiss Best Buy"s First Amended Complaint by Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John H. Chung ISO Toshiba Entities" Motion to Dismiss Best Buy"s 1st Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B to the Declaration of John H. Chung ISO Toshiba Entities" Motion to Dismiss Best Buy"s 1st Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C to the Declaration of John H. Chung ISO Toshiba Entities" Motion to Dismiss Best Buy"s 1st Amended Complaint, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Chung, John) (Filed on 12/4/2012) Modified on 12/5/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2012)

Second RESPONSE (re 7158 MOTION for Settlement Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs and Settling States Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental Entity Settlements with AUO, LG Display, and Toshiba Defendants; Memora ) Settling Defendants" Second Response To Proposed Order On Final Approval of Settlement filed byLG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Roth, Jerome) (Filed on 12/5/2012) Modified on 12/6/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2012)

Transcript of Proceedings held on November 29, 2012, before Judge Susan Illston. Court Reporter/Transcriber Belle Ball, CSR, CRR, RDR, Telephone number (415)373-2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/6/2013. (Ball, Belle) (Filed on 12/6/2012) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

tft lcd class action quotation

On September 3, 2019, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted in large part the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Micron, Samsung, and Hynix in a putative class action brought by indirect purchasers of Dynamic Random Access Memory (“DRAM”). Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc., 400 F. Supp. 3d 897, 904 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that Defendants conspired to reduce the supply of DRAM in order to drive up prices, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law, and the laws of various other states. Id. at 904, 913-14, 923.

As for Plaintiffs’ attempt to bring so-called “sister state” claims for multiple similar state law causes of action, Judge White recognized that “[c]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently held that a plaintiff in a putative class action lacks standing to assert claims under the laws of states other than those where the plaintiff resides or was injured.” Id. at 908 & n.3. Here, Plaintiffs brought claims under the laws of twenty-five states, but alleged residency in just five states (California, Florida, Michigan, Kansas, and New Hampshire) and did not allege any pertinent connection to the other twenty states. Id. at 909. Thus, Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring claims under the laws of those twenty states on this additional basis. Id. Judge White also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that standing to bring sister state claims is more appropriately resolved at class certification, rejecting Judge Chen’s ruling to the contrary in In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Litigation, 295 F. Supp. 3d 927, 953-56 (N.D. Cal. 2018), as “something of an outlier” given the fact that “multiple opinions issuing from district courts in the Ninth Circuit, at the pleading stage of a putative class action, have dismissed sister state claims based on the named plaintiff’s standing.” Id. at 909-10 (collecting cases).

The Court next addressed Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs lacked the antitrust standing required to bring a private action under the Sherman Act, examining the five factors set forth in Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 535 (1983) (“AGC”): “(i) the nature of the plaintiff’s injury, (ii) the directness of the injury, (iii) the speculative measure of the harm, (iv) the risk of duplicative recovery, and (v) the complexity in apportioning damages.” Id. at 911. In terms of the first AGC factor, Judge White recognized that Plaintiffs could plead antitrust injury by showing that the DRAM end-product market is “inextricably intertwined” with the allegedly restrained DRAM component market, but held that Plaintiffs had failed to do so based on the same lack of specificity that defeated traceability. Id. at 911-12 (distinguishing the allegations in Batteries and TFT-LCD as sufficiently detailed to link component and end-product markets). Due to this same lack of detail, particularly regarding the significance of the DRAM component relative to the final end-product price, the District Court found that the second, third, and fifth AGC factors also weighed against antitrust standing. Id. at 912-13. As the fourth AGC factor regarding duplicative recovery was neutral in light of a parallel direct purchaser action, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claim for lack of antitrust standing as well. Id. at 913; see also id. at 913-14 (holding that the AGC test also applies to Plaintiffs’ Iowa, New Mexico, and Nebraska claims, but not their New Hampshire claim, and declining to address AGC’s applicability to other state law claims).

Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act and the Illinois Antitrust Act with prejudice because private rights of action are unavailable under those statutes, id. at 925-27, and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for failure to satisfy the statute’s heightened pleading requirement, id. at 927-28. The Court declined to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Arizona, New York, and Utah antitrust laws, rejecting Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were required to plead compliance with statutory notice requirements. Id. at 923 (calling for service of pre-suit notice on the states’ attorneys general).

tft lcd class action quotation

Ambro Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-1206 (CCC)(JAD), the Court granted final approval of class action settlement in a case involving allegations that Family Dollar Stores, Inc. violated New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by misclassifying its store managers in New Jersey as exempt from state overtime premium pay. Click here to read the Opinion.

In re Atlas Mining Co. Sec. Litigation, 2008 WL 821756 (D. Idaho, March 25, 2008) (appointing Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador Lead Counsel in nationwide securities fraud class action).

In re Motorola Securities Litigation, 2007 WL 487738 (N.D. Ill. March 29, 2007) (denying in substantial part defendants’ motions for summary judgment in certified nationwide securities fraud class action; case settled on eve of trial for $190 million).

Zeno v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 480 F. Supp. 2d 825 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in certified class action for breach of contract; case later settled for full benefit of the bargain recovery).

Chin v. Chrysler Corporation, Civil Action No. 95-5569 (JCL), District of New Jersey, 461 F. Supp.2d 279 (D.N.J. 2006) (Co-Lead Counsel) (catalyst for $53 million in relief to class)

Zeno v. Ford Motor Co., 238 F.R.D. 173 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (certifying class of Pennsylvania auto buyers and lessees in breach of contract case; case later settled for full benefit of the bargain recovery).

Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador won final approval of a $768 million settlement in a nationwide insurance sales practices class action against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. The settlement, is the third largest insurance sales practices settlement in history. It represents the culmination of nearly ten years of litigation in courts around the country. Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 207 (D.N.J. 2005).

Varacallo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 207 (D.N.J. 2005) (approving nationwide class action settlement of insurance sales practices case worth over $768 million to class members, and noting that this was third largest insurance sales practices settlement ever).

Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 332 N.J. Super. 31 (App. Div. 2000) (reversing denial of certification of New Jersey class, resulting in the first certified class against MassMutual, which ultimately led to nationwide federal class action settlement worth over $750 million)

In re Nazi Era Cases Against German Defendants Litigation, Civil Action No. 98-4104(WGB), District of New Jersey, 198 F.R.D. 429 (D.N.J. 2000) (Liaison Counsel in 60 actions filed throughout the United States and consolidated in the District of New Jersey; $5.2 billion settlement)

Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador was one of two law firms that prosecuted a Section 11 Securities Act class action against Prudential Financial and underwriters stemming from Prudential"s participation in the auction rate securities market, after that market collapsed in early 2008. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of $16,500,000.

Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador was one of two law firms that prosecuted a Section 11 Securities Act class action against Prudential Financial and underwriters stemming from Prudential’s participation in the auction rate securities market, after that market collapsed in early 2008. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of $16.5 million.

Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador obtained a $193 million settlement in a nationwide securities fraud class action against Motorola, Inc. Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador served as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class, and for the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, the State of New Jersey, Division of Investment. The settlement was reached shortly before trial was scheduled to begin, after four years of hotly contested litigation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador obtained a $185 million settlement of a nationwide securities class action against Bristol-Myers Squibb. Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador served as liaison counsel for the Class. The settlement was granted final approval by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador won final approval of a settlement in a consumer fraud case involving model year 2000 and 2001 Ford F-150 vehicles. The settlement covers four states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, and South Carolina. Lite DePalma Greenberg Afanador obtained certifications of New Jersey and Pennsylvania classes and was named Co-Lead Counsel for those classes. The plaintiffs alleged that Ford had charged extra for towing packages on the F-150 vehicles, that part of that extra charge was for an upgraded radiator, and that, as Ford later admitted, Ford did not equip any of those vehicles with the upgraded radiator. The settlement provides every class member with the right to make a claim for what discovery revealed was the full value of the difference between the standard and upgraded radiators, or for 50% of the actual cost that a class member paid to have the upgraded radiator installed.

In Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation, (13-cv-09116, USDC NDIL), a class action on behalf of college athletes who suffered or were at risk of suffering head trauma, achieving structured relief, in-game medical protocols and medical monitoring of athletes, while preserving their right to pursue individual litigation.

Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (11-cv-01206-CCC – JAD, USDC DNJ), involving the successful representation of the plaintiff class in this wage-and-hour dispute.

In re Human Tissue Product Liability Litigation, a complex MDL mass action proceeding involving the illegal harvesting of body parts and the untested surgical implanting of those parts,which leg to a favorable, global settlement.