tft lcd class action made in china

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.

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-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.

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual residing in or a business headquartered in Washington State that purchased between January 1, 1998 through December 1, 2006 products containing LCD, not for resale, such as a TV, laptop or computer monitor.

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels.

TFT-LCD Flat Panels (thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal-display panels) are the glass display panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors, notebook computers, and handheld devices such as color-screen cell phones and MP3 players.

The Washington State Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any WA resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006, while residing in WA (or businesses headquartered in WA) and for their own use and not for resale. Therefore, if you or your business purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006 while residing in WA, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolution color displays. There settlements total $63 million.

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual residing in or a business headquartered in Illinois that purchased between January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2006 products containing LCD, not for resale, such as a TV, laptop or computer monitor.

​The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels.

TFT-LCD Flat Panels (thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal-display panels) are the glass display panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors, notebook computers, and handheld devices such as color-screen cell phones and MP3 players.

The Illinois Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any Illinois resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006, while residing in Illinois (or businesses headquartered in IL) and for their own use and not for resale. Therefore, if you or your business purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006 while residing in Illinois, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolutio

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual or business that purchased between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007 any Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) or any product containing a CRT, such

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Indirect class action alleges that Chunghwa, LG, Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung and Thomson (the “Defendants”) fixed the prices of CRT from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to individuals and businesses that bought CRT Products. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” As a result of the class action the Defendants agreed to settle for $576,750,000. Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”) are a display technology that was widely used in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in displays. You are eligible to file a claim if you purchased a CRT Monitor, CRT Television or CRT Product anytime from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007 for your own use. The settlements covers “indirect” purchasers of ANY BRAND (except for Sony) of CRT Monitors and Televisions, and only includes businesses or individuals that purchased the product not for resale. You are included even if you do not currently own the product. As long as you did not buy CRT “directly” from a Defendant, your purchase is eligible. The settlements includes any purchases made in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual or business that purchased a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), a CRT television or CRT computer monitor. The settlement covers Direct purchasers

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) DIRECT class action alleges that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRT from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to individuals and businesses that bought CRT Products. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” As a result of the class action the Defendants agreed to settle for $224,000,000. Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”) are a display technology that was widely used in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in displays.

The City of Los Angeles (“City”) has agreed to pay up to $92.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit seeking refunds of taxes collected for telephone services. You are eligible to submit a claim if you paid the Los Angeles Telephone Utility Users Tax (called the “UUT”) at any time from October 19, 2005 to March 15, 2008, and have not already been paid a full refund by the City for such UUT, subject to offset for any refunds the City has already paid you. The tax was typically collected by telephone service providers through charges appearing on landline and mobile telephone bills.

The UUT class action alleges that the City of Los Angeles unlawfully collected a Utility User Tax on telephone bills (personal and business landlines and cellular phones) that were not taxable under the city’s UUT ordinance. The tax which was automatically collected by the telephone companies and included in your bill, accounted for approximately 10% of the bill. As a result of the class action, the city agreed to a $92.5 million settlement to be distributed to eligible claimants. The name of the case is Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC363959. You are eligible to file a claim for a refund if your service address for the landline phone was within city limits and if the billing address of the cellular phone was within city limits. Both business and personal customers are eligible to participate. The class period is from October 19, 2005 to March 15, 2008.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed approval of a previous settlement and returned the case to the District Court on June 30, 2016. Therefore, no claim forms are available at this time, and no claim-filing deadline has been set. If another settlement is reached, no-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claims-filing period. Class members are not required to sign up with any third-party service in order to participate any settlement. For additional information, class members may visit www.paymentcardsettlement.com, the Court-approved website for this case.

If you purchased Wallboard directly from one or more of the below Defendants or their subsidiaries between January 1, 2012 and November 30, 2014, you may be a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Classes certified by the Court. The settlement amount is currently pending, and class counsel is proceeding with their suit against the non-settling defendants. “Wallboard” refers to paper-backed gypsum wallboard and is also known as drywall or plasterboard.

The lawsuit alleges that CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc., USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Inc., Eagle Materials, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC, PABCO Building Products, LLC, and TIN, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) participated in a conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices of Wallboard in violation of federal antitrust laws. The Defendants deny that they violated the antitrust laws and have asserted defenses to the claims in this lawsuit. For the Direct class action, Plaintiffs have entered into two settlement agreements to resolve claims against some Defendants, in exchange for $44.5 million and cooperation from those Defendants, as Plaintiffs continue to pursue the case against the remaining Defendants who have not settled. More specifically, TIN Inc. (“TIN”) has agreed to pay $5.25 million and provide cooperation, in exchange for the release and dismissal of TIN from the lawsuit. Additionally, USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, and USG Corporation’s subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation (collectively, “USG”) have agreed to pay $39.25 million and provide cooperation, in exchange for the release and dismissal of USG from the lawsuit. The settlement funds is being held in an interest bearing account until it is determined whether there will be additional settlements with, or judgments against, the non-settling Defendants. In connection with the TIN and USG settlements, the Court certified identical Settlement Classes composed of all persons or entities that purchased Wallboard in the United States directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries from January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2014.

You may be included in one or more of the Settlements (as a Class Member) if you Directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services from any of the Settling or Non-Settling Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates from January 1, 2001 through September 14, 2012 in the U.S., or outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from the U.S.

The Optical Disk Drive (“ODD”) class action alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of ODD Products, resulting in overcharges to consumers who directly bought ODDs and Products containing ODDs directly from the defendants between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2010. The ODD defendants are Sony, NEC, LG, Hitachi, Samsung, Toshiba, Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., BenQ, TEAC, Quanta and Panasonic. ODD includes CD drives, DVD drives, and Blu-ray drives as well as products that contain an ODD, such as a computer and laptop.

The Optical Disk Drive (“ODD”) class action alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of ODD Products, resulting in overcharges to consumers who directly bought ODDs and Products containing ODDs directly from the defendants between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2010. The ODD defendants are Sony, NEC, LG, Hitachi, Samsung, Toshiba, Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., BenQ, TEAC, Quanta and Panasonic. ODD includes CD drives, DVD drives, and Blu-ray drives as well as products that contain an ODD, such as a computer and laptop.

You are a Class Member and could get benefits from the $297 million settlement, if you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup, and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost component. The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive benefits.

The class action alleges that US Foods (“USF”), between 1998 and 2005, improperly inflated the purported “cost” of goods it sold to its customers with cost-plus purchasing arrangements. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or USF. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement of $297 million. As a result of the settlement, any company who purchased, during the period of 1998 through 2005, products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup (“cost-plus arrangement”), and for which USF used a Value Added Service Provider (“VASP”) transaction to calculate the cost component, is eligible to participate in the class action settlement. The alleged VASPs were (i) Seafood Marketing Specialists, Inc., (ii) Frozen Farms, Inc., (iii) Produce Solutions, Inc., a/k/a Cross Valley Produce, Inc., (iv) Private Labels Distribution, Inc., a/k/a Private Brands Distribution, Inc., (v) Specialty Supply & Marketing, Inc., and (vi) Commodity Management Systems, Inc. Your share of the fund will depend on the number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases used a VASP transaction to calculate the invoice price. The settlement fund will be distributed to Class Members who file claims on a pro rata basis, based on Class Members’ cost-plus/VASP purchase amounts. None of the settlement fund will revert to USF.

The DRAM Indirect class action alleges that the Defendants fixed the price of DRAM causing individuals and businesses to pay more for DRAM and DRAM-containing devices. The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. Individuals and businesses are eligible for the $310 million settlement if they purchased DRAM or a device containing DRAM anywhere in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002, for their own use or for resale.

You are a Class Member and could get benefits from the $297 million settlement, if you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup, and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost component. The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive benefits.

The class action alleges that US Foods (“USF”), between 1998 and 2005, improperly inflated the purported “cost” of goods it sold to its customers with cost-plus purchasing arrangements. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or USF. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement of $297 million. As a result of the settlement, any company who purchased, during the period of 1998 through 2005, products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup (“cost-plus arrangement”), and for which USF used a Value Added Service Provider (“VASP”) transaction to calculate the cost component, is eligible to participate in the class action settlement. The alleged VASPs were (i) Seafood Marketing Specialists, Inc., (ii) Frozen Farms, Inc., (iii) Produce Solutions, Inc., a/k/a Cross Valley Produce, Inc., (iv) Private Labels Distribution, Inc., a/k/a Private Brands Distribution, Inc., (v) Specialty Supply & Marketing, Inc., and (vi) Commodity Management Systems, Inc. Your share of the fund will depend on the number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases used a VASP transaction to calculate the invoice price. The settlement fund will be distributed to Class Members who file claims on a pro rata basis, based on Class Members’ cost-plus/VASP purchase amounts. None of the settlement fund will revert to USF.

You may be entitled to file a claim for the $400 million settlement that was reached in a class action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of thin film transistor‐liquid crystal display (“TFT‐LCD”) panels and certain products containing those panels. Beginning as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing through December 2006, the companies listed below engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT‐LCD panels and certain products containing those panels in violation of federal antitrust laws. In order to recover funds from the TFT-LCD $400 million class action settlement fund, you must file a claim before April 5, 2012.

You may be entitled to file a claim for the $400 million settlement that was reached in a class action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of thin film transistor‐liquid crystal display (“TFT‐LCD”) panels and certain products containing those panels. Beginning as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing through December 2006, the companies listed below engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT‐LCD panels and certain products containing those panels in violation of federal antitrust laws. In order to recover funds from the TFT-LCD $400 million class action settlement fund, you must file a claim before April 5, 2012.Let’s talk!

In late 2020, a group of investors launched a damages action against Kangmei in Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. The claimants alleged that the drug maker had inflated revenues, interest income, operating profits, and cash in its financials. The defendants in the action included Ma Xingtian, Kangmei’s former chairman and general manager, and five other company officials, as well as GP Certified Public Accountants, Kangmei’s auditor.

In April 2021, the China Securities Investor Services Center filed an application for the Kangmei action to proceed as a representative action on behalf of retail investors.  The court’s acceptance of the application made the action the first representative investor action under new class action procedures that went into effect in 2020. At the time the representative action application was filed, the Chinese securities regulator issued a statement vowing “zero tolerance” of accounting fraud, adding further that “toxic tumors” must be “eradicated swiftly.”

The Guanzhou court held a public hearing in the action in July 2021, which resulted in the November 12, 2021 verdict. The court’s verdict found the defendants jointly and severally liable.

According to news reports, following the verdict, the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission issued a statement that hailed the verdict as a “vigorous measure to implement the country’s revised securities law” and as a “pioneering, iconic and milestone effort to safeguard investors’ legitimate rights and interests.” The news reports also stated that the regulator had “vowed to improve the class-action litigation mechanism and push for special representative action suits on a regular basis.”

As I discussed in a post earlier this year (here), in December 2019, the National People’s Congress adopted certain revisions to the Chinese securities laws, known as Securities Law 2019. Various regulations implementing the new law were put into place in 2020. Article 95 of the new Securities law provides that in civil lawsuits pertaining to misrepresentations, a representative may be appointed to participate in the legal proceedings on behalf of investors. As I noted in my post discussing the new law, commentators had expressed concern that the new procedures introduced a Western-style class action regime.

The Kangmei Pharmaceuticals action was the first to use the new representative action mechanism under the new securities law. The verdict in the Kangmei action certainly underscores the concerns expressed about the liability risk that the new procedures present. The Kangmei case involved an alleged massive scandal, but the size of the verdict is still remarkable.

The verdict in the case is a milestone development, both for the development of securities class action litigation in China and for the spread of collective investor actions globally. The magnitude of the verdict makes this development all the more remarkable. The verdict represents one of the highest-ever investor recoveries ever outside of the U.S. The massive verdict is not as large as, say, the $1.5 billion settlement in the Fortis collective investor action in the Netherlands, or the $1 billion settlement in the RBS action in the U.K., but the verdict amount is substantial enough to draw attention to the extent for securities law liability under the revised Chinese securities laws. The post-verdict statement by the Chinese regulator – to the effect that the regulator intends to push for special representative action suits on a regular basis – suggests that the Kangmei action may merely be the opening salvo.

As I said in my earlier discussion of the Chinese securities laws, the revision to the Chinese securities laws is just one of the most recent developments in the general rise globally of collective investor actions. As I have also noted elsewhere, the rise of collective investor action may be one of the most important global developments in the corporate and securities legal arena in the last decade. The massive verdict in the Kangmei case suggests that the collective investor actions may now represent one of the most significant potential liability exposures for listed companies in China. The Kangmei verdict is also the latest evidence that we have indeed entered a new era in global securities litigation.

If you would like to know the status of your claim, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886.

Read this please. People other than these states are they eligible or no ? Under the terms of the LCD price-fixing settlement, the companies will pay a combined $1.1 billion to consumers in 24 states and Washington, D.C. that purchased a laptop, computer monitor or television with a flat-panel LCD display between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006 manufactured by one of these companies.

The LCD class action settlement only covers consumers who purchased INDIRECTLY from these companies. “Indirectly” means that you purchased an LCD panel in a television, monitor or notebook computer from someone other than the manufacturer of that panel (such as at Best Buy, Amazon.com, etc.). The states covered under the LCD class action settlement include:

Topclassactions we are thankful to you providing available settlements. Please DONT make comments like people are getting hundreds of dollars in checks. Settlement admin and companies are not throwing money around. Violaters are paying and DONT forget lawyers involved in this settlement will get 350 millions dollars in FEES.. If people did get checks because they filed valid claims.Secondly you never help hundreds of people who never get anything from Garden City Group claim administartors from Dublin ohio and Seattle Washington because they have blocked hundreds of people names address and phones on BLOCKED list.They throw many thousands claims in Garbage and never even answer weather we have valid claims. GARDEN CITY GROUP settlement administrators have been violating human rights for years and nothing has been done about. Most people live work hard in our country and pay taxes so no reason to get settlements awards when companies are negligible. Please dont act like you are sending checks to people.

UPDATE 3: On Oct. 27, 2014, our readers began reporting that they finally from the LCD panel class action settlement. Some readers have received checks worth hundreds of dollars. Let us know how much money YOU received in the comments section below. Congratulations!

UPDATE 10/23/14: A federal judge reportedly gave authorization to distribute the LCD class action settlement funds at a hearing on Oct. 17. 2014, and the checks are likely to be distributed the last week in October. Read more.

On July 24, 2014, you were sent an email advising you that all appeals in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement had been dismissed and that the final steps necessary to disburse recoveries to Claimants were proceeding. This email is to provide you with an update on the status of these claim processing activities and the anticipated schedule for distributing checks. You will not receive any further email updates on the status of these procedures unless there is some significant unforeseen delay.

We have now completed the claim audit/verification process. Class Counsel and the Attorneys General submitted a motion seeking approval from the Court to disburse payments to Claimants. The Court is currently scheduled to consider the motion on October 17, 2014. After Court approval is granted, distribution checks will be mailed. It is anticipated that this will occur within four weeks of Court Approval.

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim. Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, please let us know if your address changes.

You previously filed a claim to share in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement. As you may be aware, distribution of the settlement proceeds to Claimants had been delayed because of appeals from the Court’s approval of the settlements. All appeals have now been dismissed. Accordingly, we now can move forward with concluding the procedures necessary to disburse recoveries to Claimants. This email is to provide you with an update on the status of these claim processing activities.

We are well along in the claim audit/verification process and currently expect that these activities will be completed by the end of August 2014. It is expected that Class Counsel will seek approval from the Court to disburse payment to Claimants soon thereafter. Payments will be sent to Claimants within two weeks of Court approval.

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim. Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclaims.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, please let us know if your address changes.

UPDATE: Distribution of funds from the LCD class action settlement has been delayed by appeals. The Settlement Administrator is estimating that the appeals will not be resolved until 2015 to 2018. More info: http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/23583-update-lcd-class-action-settlement-money-delayed-appeals/

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement. This email is to provide an update on the court proceedings in this case which directly affect when payments will be disbursed under the Settlement.

Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. We are continuing to review claims and we will contact you if your claim is deficient or additional information is needed. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions regarding the Court proceedings, please feel free to email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, if you change addresses, please let us know.

If you click on the link above…LCD.com, it states that all 10 settlements have final approval with the court. There are appeals pending & that no payments will be made to class members until all appeals are resolved. This was updated 9/27/13.

Sent in all required paperwork (plenty of time) -received a letter dated Feb. 21, 2013 – stating “All proof you submitted to support your claim was accepted.” – Contacted LCD to check on the status – they told me “you failed to send in your paperwork!” I’m a bit upset over this!

I have a indirect claim that I filed a long time ago. I even received a letter wanting to clarify the number of screens I purchased. Now today I get an LCD FLAT PANEL CONSUMER CLAIM FORM….did anybody else receive the same thing? Why would they send this out now?

According to the Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel filed a Motion for distribution of the Settlement Fund. A hearing is scheduled on July 12, 2013. When the Court grants the distribution motion, checks will be mailed to eligible Class Members.

2.The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(g) above, including all jurisdictional defenses to the prosecution of this case, and agrees voluntarily to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion, including but not limited to an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, that challenges the sentence imposed by the Court if that sentence is consistent with or below the recommended sentence in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement, regardless of how the sentence is determined by the Court. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b) and (c). Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall act as a bar to the defendant perfecting any legal remedies it may otherwise have on appeal or collateral attack respecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant will waive indictment and plead guilty at arraignment to a one-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Information will charge the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels ("TFT-LCD") sold in the United States and elsewhere, from on or about September 14, 2001, to on or about December 1, 2006, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

4.Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence sufficient to prove the following facts: (a)For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the "relevant period" is that period from on or about September 14, 2001, to on or about December 1, 2006. During the relevant period, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation ("Chi Mei"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Taiwan, Republic of China, sold TFT-LCD into various markets, including the U.S. The defendant has its headquarters and principal place of business in Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China. During the relevant period, the defendant was a producer of TFT-LCD, was engaged in the sale of TFT-LCD in the United States and elsewhere, and employed 5,000 or more individuals.

(b)TFT-LCD are glass panels composed of an array of tiny pixels that are electronically manipulated in order to display images. TFT-LCD are manufactured in a broad range of sizes and specifications for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, mobile devices and other applications.

(c)During the relevant period, the defendant, through its officers and employees, including high-level personnel of the defendant, participated in a conspiracy among major TFT-LCD producers, the primary purpose of which was to fix the price of certain TFT-LCD sold in the United States and elsewhere. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant, through its officers and employees, engaged in discussions and attended meetings, including group meetings referred to by some of the participants as "crystal meetings," with representatives of other major TFT-LCD producers. During these discussions and meetings, agreements were reached to fix the price of certain TFT-LCD to be sold in the United States and elsewhere.

(d)During the relevant period, TFT-LCD sold by one or more of the conspirator firms, and equipment and supplies necessary to the production and distribution of TFT-LCD, as well as payments for TFT-LCD, traveled in interstate and foreign commerce. The business activities of the defendant and its coconspirators in connection with the production and sale of TFT-LCD affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce.

(e)Acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were carried out within the Northern District of California. TFT-LCD affected by this conspiracy was sold by one or more of the conspirators to customers in this District. POSSIBLE MAXIMUM SENTENCE

9.The United States and the defendant agree that the applicable Guidelines fine range exceeds the fine contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 above. Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of the defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and prior to sentencing in this case, the United States agrees that it will make a motion, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 8C4.1, for a downward departure from the Guidelines fine range and will request that the Court impose the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement because of the defendant"s substantial assistance in the government"s investigation and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal law in the TFT-LCD industry.

12. In light of the civil class action cases filed against the defendant, including In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M:07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, which potentially provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages, and the opportunity for potential victims to pursue damages through non-class claims in the multidistrict litigation and other proceedings, the United States agrees that it will not seek a restitution order for the offense charged in the Information. DEFENDANT"S COOPERATION

13.The defendant, its parent Chi Mei Corporation, and their subsidiaries engaged in the sale or production of TFT-LCD (collectively, "related entities") will cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of TFT-LCD in the United States and elsewhere, any other federal investigations relating to the manufacture and sale of TFT-LCD resulting therefrom, and any litigation or other proceedings relating to the manufacture and sale of TFT-LCD to which the United States is a party ("Federal Proceeding"). In the event that defendant or any of the related entities is acquired by or merged with another company, the cooperation obligations of the acquiring company under this Paragraph shall not extend beyond those of the acquired or merged defendant or related entity at the time of the acquisition or merger.

15.Upon acceptance of the guilty plea called for by this Plea Agreement and the imposition of the recommended sentence, and subject to the cooperation requirements of Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, the United States agrees that it will not bring further criminal charges against the defendant or any of the related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement that was undertaken in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of TFT-LCD in the United States and elsewhere, or undertaken in connection with any investigation of such a conspiracy. The nonprosecution terms of this paragraph do not apply to civil matters of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence.

16.The United States agrees to the following: (a)Upon the Court"s acceptance of the guilty plea called for by this Plea Agreement and the imposition of the recommended sentence and subject to the exceptions noted in Paragraph 16(c), the United States will not bring criminal charges against any current or former director, officer, employee, or consultant of the defendant or any of the related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement and while that person was acting as a director, officer, employee, or consultant of the defendant or any of the related entities that was undertaken in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of TFT-LCD in the United States and elsewhere, or undertaken in connection with any investigation of such a conspiracy ("Relevant Offense"), except that the protections granted in this paragraph shall not apply to Jau-Yang Ho, Hsin-Tsung Wang, Chen-Lung Kuo, James Yang, and Wen Hong "Amigo" Huang;

17.The United States agrees that when any person travels to the United States for interviews, grand jury appearances, or court appearances pursuant to this Plea Agreement, or for meetings with counsel in preparation therefor, the United States will take no action, based upon any Relevant Offense, to subject such person to arrest, detention, or service of process, or to prevent such person from departing the United States. This paragraph does not apply to an individual"s commission of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), making false statements or declarations in grand jury or court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1623), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503, et seq.), or contempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402) in connection with any testimony or information provided or requested in any Federal Proceeding.

18.The defendant understands that it may be subject to administrative action by federal or state agencies other than the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, based upon the conviction resulting from this Plea Agreement, and that this Plea Agreement in no way controls whatever action, if any, other agencies may take. However, the United States agrees that, if requested, it will advise the appropriate officials of any governmental agency considering such administrative action of the fact, manner, and extent of the cooperation of the defendant and the related entities as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative action, if any, to take. REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL

Motorola Mobility) and 9th Circuit (Hsuing) regarding the scope and application of the U.S. Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a to preclude Sherman Act liability for conduct that takes place outside the United States. However, in January 2015, both Circuits issued amended opinions in cases stemming from the TFT-LCD price-fixing case—after reviewing each other’s original opinion and a lot of commentary and criticism by outsiders. Read more >>

Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Case No. CV-04-1498 CBM, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Served as Lead Counsel in a jury trial representing a class of hourly newspaper employees involving claims of unpaid overtime and other wage and hour violations. After jury and bench trial, obtained a judgment in favor of his clients for more than $5,200,000 in 2015. Opinion at (Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 623 F.3d 743.).

Paige v. State of California, Case No. CV 94-0083 CBM U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Served as Co-Lead Trial Counsel in the two-month class action trial involving claims against California Highway Patrol alleging discrimination in promotions against Non-White Officers

City of Los Angeles Service Charge Cases, Lead Case BC377050, Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge William Highberger. Class Counsel in five separate actions on behalf of hourly workers against various Century Boulevard hotels alleging violations of the City of Los Angeles Service Charge Ordinance. Defended the constitutionality of the Ordinance on Appeal in the published decision of Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 36

Craig, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-07923-JCS, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Serving as Co-Class Counsel in an action brought on behalf of 207 class members. Preliminary Approval granted in 2021 for $3,900,000.

Class Action v. Major Oil Refinery,United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Served as Co-Lead Counsel in action brought on behalf of Oil Refinery Operators for rest break violations. Matter settled in 2019 for $15,250,000.

Berlanga, et al. v. Equilon Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00282-MMC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Rest break case brought on behalf of Refinery Operators. Matter settled in 2019 for $7,750,000 with 497 class members receiving a check averaging over $11,000.

Clack v. Chevron Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. dba Chevron Products Company and ChevronTexaco Global Lubricants,Case No. BC649514. Los Angeles Superior Court. Served as Co-Lead Counsel in action brought on behalf of on behalf of approximately 1,500 Oil Refinery Operators for rest break violations. Matter settled in 2020 for $ $17,375,000. It was the largest labor and employment settlement in California in 2020.

Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-9224 MWF (SSx), United States District Court for the Central District of California. Served as Co-Class Counsel in an action brought on behalf of 338 class members. Matter settled in 2020 for $4,391,585.

Buzas v. Phillips 66 Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-00163-YGR, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Served as Co-Lead Counsel in action brought on behalf of 500 Oil Refinery Operators for rest break violations. Matter settled in 2018 for $5,500,000.

Murphy v. CVS Caremark, BC 464785, Los Angeles Superior Court. Class Counsel in wage and hour class action brought on behalf of more than 70,000 hourly employees. Suit alleged various violations, including the failure to pay employees while subject to employer control during security checks. Matter settled in 2017, prior to trial, for $12,750,000. It was the second largest wage and hour violation settlement obtained in California in the year 2017.

Aguilar v. Flying Foods Group Pacific, Inc., Case No. BC 553539, Los Angeles Superior Court. Lead Counsel in class action of employees with claims of unpaid overtime and other wage and hour violation failures. As Class Counsel, sought damages, restitution and other relief for the Class for the time period from August 1, 2010 to the present. Matter settled in 2018 for $4,150,000. It was the ninth largest labor and employment settlement and among top 20 Class Action settlements obtained in California in the year 2018

Barrientos v. Hilton Los Angeles Airport, Case No. BC403925, Los Angeles Superior Court. The Lawsuit was filed on December 16, 2008, and the alleged class period dated back to December 16, 2004. Parties agreed to resolve the Lawsuit by way of settlement in 2011. Defendants paid $2,500,000.

USW v. ConocoPhillips Company, CV 08-2068 PSG, United States District Court. Class Counsel brought on behalf of refinery operators for on-duty meal periods. Case settled in 2013, prior to trial, for $15,500,000. Published opinion can be found at (United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy v. ConocoPhillips Co. (9th Cir. 2010) 593 F.3d 802.)

Navarro v. Pacifica Hosts Hotels, Inc. (2008), Case No. BC352017, Los Angeles Superior Court. Class Counsel for class of more than 4,000 hourly employees at 19 hotels in California with claims of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks. Matter settled in 2008 for $6,500,000.

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.

A class action settlement with Epic Games, Inc. ("Epic") has received preliminary approval from the Superior Court of North Carolina, Tenth Judicial District. Under the settlement, all U.S. players of Fortnite: Save the World and Rocket League who bought a random item loot box in either game before Epic Games discontinued them will receive certain benefits immediately and automatically. The settlement also provides up to $26.5 million in cash and other benefits to U.S.-based Fortnite and Rocket League players to resolve claims arising from players" purchases of Fortnite and Rocket League in-game items.

The class action lawsuit levied against Lenovo and Superfish for the Visual Discovery adware has long since been settled. With roughly 800,000 laptops sold between September 2014 and February 2015 having been affected and therefore qualifying for a claim estimated at up to $40. While claims can go higher with proof, the majority of claimants will likely pick the easy option. That said, a rumor from Media Post is now stating users may be eligible for up to $55 thanks in part to fewer people coming forward than initially expected. This is likely not true as the settlement came out January 11th. Even so, this new rumor gaining traction at least serves as a good reminder that if you haven"t done so and you have a system that qualifies (listed after the break) you can go here and submit a claim. All claimants have until March 25th, 2019 to file there claim.

The new year does not seem to bring good tidings alone for NVIDIA, with yet another class action lawsuit promising to keep their legal team busy. When we first posted about NVIDIA stock prices falling 2.1% following the launch of their Turing microarchitecture cards, there was no warning that just a few days after that post things would get worse. Indeed, as of today, the NVIDIA stock price on the NASDAQ stock market has fallen nearly 54% from the 1-year high that was only this past calendar quarter. California-based Schall law firm believes this drop in price can be attributed to more than just the volatile trading that has been ongoing in general in the stock markets, and has decided to file a class action lawsuit against NVIDIA.

Schall Law believes, and we quote, "the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. NVIDIA touted its ability to monitor the cryptocurrency market and make rapid changes to its business as necessary. The Company claimed to be "masters at managing our channel, and we understand the channel very well." NVIDIA also claimed to the market that any drop off in demand for its GPUs amongst cryptocurrency miners would not negatively impact the Company"s business because of strong demand for GPUs from the gaming market. Based on these facts, the Company"s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about NVIDIA, investors suffered damages." These are strong words indeed, as oft is the case with the launch of class action lawsuits, and they have put out a press statement to accompany a link for those wanting to join along which can be seen in the source below.

Law firm Hagens Berman has filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung, Micron, and Hynix in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. According to the firm"s investigation, the three DRAM manufacturers conspired to limit the supply of DRAM chips between 2016 and 2017 with the purpose of inflating their prices. The firm affirmed that DRAM saw a 47 percent increase in price during 2017, which made it the largest jump ever in the last 30 years. As noted by the filing, Samsung, Micron and Hynix collectively own 96 percent of the worldwide DRAM market as of 2017. The "conduct changed abruptly" when the Chinese government launched an investigation to look into the matter. This class action is opened to consumers in the U.S. who"ve purchased a device that uses DRAM between July 1, 2016 and February 1, 2018.

"What we"ve uncovered in the DRAM market is a classic antitrust, price-fixing scheme in which a small number of kingpin corporations hold the lion"s share of the market," stated Hagens Berman managing partner Steve Berman. "Instead of playing by the rules, Samsung, Micron and Hynix chose to put consumers in a chokehold, wringing the market for more profit."

The as-of-yet ongoing securities fraud lawsuit over AMD"s "Llano" APUs has just achieved a milestone, in having been authorized by the Court to proceed as a class action. The Court"s decision doesn"t imply that the defendants (Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Richard A. Bergman, and Dr. Lisa T. Su) did anything wrong. The defendants have not been ordered to pay any money, no settlement has been reached, no money is available as of now and there is no guarantee that there will be in the future.

Hard drive major Seagate has been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing it of abnormally high failure rates for its 1.5 TB and 3 TB internal and external/portable hard drives. It also accuses the company of false claims over "reliability" and "dependability" in its marketing.

OCZ Technology Group, Inc., a leading provider of high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs) and power management solutions for computing devices and systems, today announced that it has reached a settlement in principle in the federal shareholder class action litigation filed in connection with the Company"s financial restatement.

The settlement is subject to negotiation of final documentation and court approval. Subject to Court approval, the settlement of $7.5 million will be funded by the Company"s D&O liability insurance. The settlement may include an additional payment of the lesser of $6M or 4% of the net proceeds in the event that the company or any portion of it is sold within six months of the executed settlement agreement. This settlement would resolve the consolidated shareholder class actions pending in connection with the restatement.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP today announced that a federal court jury this morning found that Toshiba Corporation and its subsidiaries conspired with the world"s other leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Displays ("TFT-LCDs") to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products. The jury awarded damages of $87 million. Federal antitrust law requires the trebling of these damages, resulting in a $261 million award against Toshiba.

Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba) and its subsidiary, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (TAEC), announced today that a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) has issued a verdict against Toshiba in the amount of US$87 million due to alleged antitrust practices in the LCD business. Given credits for settlements by other defendants, Toshiba expects that it will not have to pay any damages as a result of this verdict, even after trebling under U.S. antitrust laws.

Toshiba has consistently maintained that there was no illegal activity on its part in the LCD business in the United States, and Toshiba continues to hold that view. While Toshiba appreciates the jury"s time and effort, Toshiba believes that the jury"s verdict is in error as to the finding of wrongdoing on Toshiba"s part. Toshiba plans to pursue all available legal avenues to correct that finding.

Voltage Pictures, producers of movie Hurt Locker attempted to use a reverse class action tactic to extort hundreds of millions in "settlement" claims aka extortion demands over alleged "losses" due to "piracy" - something that has never and can never, be quantified and proved. However, their attempt has failed miserably - plus read on for how Voltage Pictures did a little content "theft" of their very own to make the movie.

In perhaps one of the more ironic legal moves to be seen recently, Sony"s clause in its Terms of Service preventing PlayStation 3 owners from filing class action lawsuits has itself attracted a class action lawsuit! The lawsuit was filed in Northern California in November, by a man on behalf of PS3 owners who signed up for the PlayStation Network before September, when the ToS were updated and this anti-class action clause added.

Three days ago, we brought you news of how researchers have made proof-of-concept attacks on HP printers by reprogramming their firmware. Among other things, these attacks could deliberately cause the fuser in a printer to overheat and singe the paper, until shut down by a built-in unoverridable thermal switch, preventing a fire. Now, in light of this, a lawsuit has been filed by David Goldblatt of New York, seeking damages for fraudulent and deceptive business practices and is looking for class action status: "As a result of HP"s failure to require the use of digital signatures to authenticate software upgrades, hackers are able to reprogram the HP Printers" software with malicious software without detection," the suit says. "Once the HP printers" software is maliciously reprogrammed, the HP printers can be remotely controlled by computer hackers over the Internet, who can then steal personal information, attack otherwise secure networks, and even cause physical damage to the HP printers, themselves." Note that HP has used digital signatures since 2009 to authenticate the firmware updates, helping to mitigate this potential problem in recent models.

China"s first 8.5-generation TFT-LCD production line was launched in Bengbu, East China"s Anhui province, on June 18, 2019, representing a breakthrough in the production of high-definition LCD screen, Science and Technology Daily reported.

TFT-LCD, or Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display, is key strategic material of the electronic information display industry. The Gen 8.5 TFT-LCD production line, launched by the Bengbu Glass Industry Design and Research Institute of the China National Building Material Group, will produce high-definition LCD screens of 55 inches, the report said.

According to the Liquid Crystal Branch of the China Optics and Optoelectronics Manufactures Association, the demand for TFT-LCD in the Chinese mainland was about 260 million