tft lcd class action factory

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.

A federal judge in California recently approved disbursement of funds in a final settlement in years-long litigation regarding antitrust violation claims against three manufacturers of LCD screens. The claims were brought against AUO, LG, and Toshiba, alleging that they had engaged in schemes to fix the prices of the film transistor-liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) over a period of several years beginning as early as 1999. The manufacturers were accused of conspiring to set the prices for the TFT-LCD screens at artificially high values. This was done over a period of at least eight years. The litigation involved two main settlement classes; one for direct purchasers and one for indirect purchasers of the technology. Within the direct purchasers class, two subclasses were certified; one for purchasers of the panels themselves and another for purchasers of finished products that included the screens, such as televisions, notebooks, and monitors. Two indirect purchaser subclasses were also certified. The first of those was a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief and the second consisted of statewide classes seeking monetary relief. The statewide classes were certified for Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

As part of the relief for the injunctive class, the manufacturers will establish antitrust compliance programs. The only defendant to proceed to trial was Toshiba, and after six weeks of trial in 2012, a unanimous jury awarded $17 million to the panel class of direct purchasers and $70 million to the finished product class. Following the trial, Toshiba agreed to pay $30 million in exchange for dismissal with prejudice and a release of the claims against them. Overall, the direct purchasers received more than $473 million in settlements as the result of all claims against all defendants. $258.63 million of that money has been directed to go to class members, with $58.18 million being reserved for future unanticipated contingencies. Approximately $156 million went to pay attorney fees and other administrative costs. Now that the disbursement of the funds has been approved, checks will begin going out to class members and administrators.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In May 2017, the State of Illinois reached a tentative settlement agreement with the last remaining Defendant in the last remaining proceeding in the multidistrict TFT-LCD price-fixing antitrust litigation. This capped roughly ten years of Compass Lexecon involvement, from the class certification phase of the case through this final settlement. Professor Dennis Carlton testified in three trials, and a number of arbitration hearings and depositions. Professor Janusz Ordover testified on behalf of the Joint Defense Group on class certification issues. In addition, Professor Bobby Willig testified on behalf of Sharp Corporation, and Professor Dan Rubinfeld testified on behalf of Samsung.

In the direct-purchasers class litigation, Professor Carlton testified for Defendant Toshiba at trial in 2012. While Plaintiffs and their economic experts argued for overcharges of nearly $900 million – and thus damages of more than $2.5 billion after trebling – the jury determined that overcharges were only $87 million. Polling of jurors revealed that Carlton’s testimony was “very influential in the deliberations.”

In the Best Buy LCD price fixing litigation, Carlton testified for Defendants Toshiba and Hannstar at trial in 2013. Plaintiff Best Buy’s economic expert argued for damages of roughly $900 million post-trebling, based on an overcharge percentage of approximately 20%. The jury found no liability for Toshiba, and, for HannStar, which admitted liability, the jury awarded only direct damages in precisely the amount based on Professor Carlton’s analysis – $7.47 million.

A class action lawsuit alleged a detailed conspiracy from the late 1990s through 2006 to fix LCD prices, resulting in higher costs for buyers of televisions, laptops and other electronics. Several companies also pleaded guilty to separate criminal charges and paid fines.

Toshiba spokeswoman Deborah Chalmers said the company “denies any wrongdoing on its part in the LCD business, and it entered into the settlement to avoid further expense and the distraction of protracted litigation.”

A deal involving the other seven companies, including Samsung, Sharp and Hitachi, had previously been approved. If the latest deal becomes final, the total recovery for class members will top $1 billion, according to the court filing.

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.

In October, Wisconsin denied Foxconn subsidies because it had failed to build the LCD factory specified in its contract with the state. As The Verge reported, it had created a building one-twentieth the size of the promised factory, taken out a permit to use it for storage, and failed to employ anywhere near the number of employees the contract called for. Nevertheless, Foxconn publicly objected “on numerous grounds” to Wisconsin’s denial of subsidies.

Documents obtained through a records request show Foxconn’s rationale: it doesn’t think it was specifically promising to build an LCD factory at all. According to a November 23rd letter to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), Foxconn does not think the factory specified in the contract, an enormous Generation 10.5 LCD fabrication facility, was actually a “material” part of the contract. (“Material” is a legal term that means relevant or significant.)

“As you confirmed on November 10, 2020, the only reason the WEDC made the determination that the Recipients are ineligible for tax credits is because the WEDC believes the Recipients have failed to carry out the ‘Project,’” Foxconn wrote. “Thus, WEDC’s determination of ineligibility is based off its belief that the Generation 10.5 TFT-LCD Fabrication Facility is a material term of the Agreement.”

“Thus, WEDC’s determination of ineligibility is based off its belief that the Generation 10.5 TFT-LCD Fabrication Facility is a material term of the Agreement.”

WEDC is standing by its denial of subsidies. In a letter dated December 4th, the agency wrote that the definition of the project as a Gen 10.5 LCD factory was in fact central to the contract, calling Foxconn’s claim that jobs and investment were the only terms that mattered “incomplete and flawed in several respects.” (It also noted that Foxconn hasn’t performed on the jobs or investment parts of the contract, either.)

The contract explicitly defined the project as a Gen 10.5 LCD factory, and its enormous size and economic impact was the justification for the record-breaking subsidy package Foxconn received, WEDC pointed out, as it has numerous times before. “Without a Generation 10.5 TFT-LCD Fabrication Facility, there is no justification, or consideration, for the enormous tax credit incentives or expense to Wisconsin taxpayers,” WEDC wrote.

WEDC ended the letter by reiterating it was open to amending the contract to reflect Foxconn’s current plans. There are signs that such an agreement might be close. After claiming the specifics of what it was building were never important, Foxconn added that it does wish to discuss amending the contract to “lower the taxpayer liability in exchange for a flexible business environment in Wisconsin.” Foxconn has previously expressed interest in an amendment only to revert to insisting it was building an LCD factory after all, but it’s possible that with President Trump exiting the White House, the company will feel less pressure to maintain the facade that it’s building the project Trump touted.