lcd panel 1.1 billion settlement price

In the late "90s, when most of us could only dream of having a thin, widescreen TV, several manufacturers were fixing prices on the LCD screens that were about to revolutionize the industry. More than a decade later, consumers who bought LCDs back then have a chance to get their money back.

The FBI claims that between 1999 and 2006, these companies sold a combined $71.9 billion in price-fixed panels worldwide, an estimated $23.5 billion in the U.S. alone.

Earlier this year, attorneys general for 24 states and the District of Columbia reached a $1.1 billion settlement with the manufacturers. People who resided in those states (see list below) between 1999 and 2006 and who also purchased an LCD-screen TV, monitor, or notebook computer during those years may be eligible for payouts of at least $25.

The deadline for making a claim on the settlement is December 6, 2012, so the clock is ticking. If you believe you are eligible to make a claim, go to LCDclass.com and fill in the form.

In the late 1990s, there were what were called "Crystal Meetings". Top executives from ten Asian-based tech companies met in hotels and bars in Taiwan to set the price of LCD screens. In other words, price-fixing.

Customers and businesses who purchased LCD screens from ten manufacturers, including Samsung, Sharp and Toshiba between 1999 and 2006 can file a claim online at LCDClass.com. They agreed to pay a multi-state settlement of $1.1 billion.

Flanagan, a Charlotte resident, is North Carolina"s lead plaintiff in the case. She purchased a Macintosh desktop computer with an LCD screen in November 2001 for more than $2,200 dollars. The screen was traced back to one of the ten companies. She was represented by Charlotte lawyer James Wyatt, since the lawsuit was first filed in 2007.

The FBI claims that between 1999 and 2006, these companies sold a combined $71.9 billion in price-fixed panels worldwide, an estimated $23.5 billion in the U.S. alone.

When a large-scale buyer of the LCD screens began to sniff out the price-fixing in 2005, the companies involved didn’t put an end to the practice, says the FBI. Instead, the company used lower-level employees to attend the meetings, which were moved from hotel rooms to restaurants and cafes to throw off the scent. These group meetings still drew unwanted attention, so the FBI says they eventually became one-on-one restaurant meetings.

Earlier this year, attorneys general for 24 states and the District of Columbia reached a $1.1 billion settlement with the manufacturers. People who resided in those states (see list below) between 1999 and 2006, and who also purchased an LCD TV, monitor or a notebook computer during those years, may be eligible for payouts of at least $25, and possibly more.

The deadline for making a claim on the settlement is Dec. 6, 2012, which means the clock is ticking. If you believe you are eligible to make a claim, just go to LCDclass.com and fill in the form.

U.S. states on Thursday announced they have reached settlement agreements with LCD makers LG Display, AU Optronics and Toshiba, who will pay close to US$571 million end the price-fixing case against them.

The U.S. state attorneys general said that the companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain prices of TFT-LCD flat panels, which led to prices being inflated and consumers being overcharged. Consumers in 24 states and the District of Columbia will be refunded overcharges they paid between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2006.

Earlier settlements were made with companies including Chimei, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Epson, HannStar Display, Hitachi, Samsung Electronics and Sharp. The companies paid $538 million to a settlement fund. With the addition of settlement agreements with LG Display, AU Optronics and Toshiba, the fund has now ballooned to $1.1 billion.

Following court approval of the settlements ,close to $692 million will be available as partial compensation to consumers in the states involved who purchased products containing TFT-LCD panels, said the New York State Attorney General"s office in a statement. Users can visit the LCD class-action lawsuit website for registration and more information on the past settlements.

A class-action case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in California. In earlier settlements made last month, Samsung has agreed to pay $240 million into the settlement fund, Sharp will pay $115.5 million and Chi Mei will pay $110.3 million.

A lawyer representing the class-action status against the display companies, Joseph Alioto, said that consumers will get paid a minimum of $25 for purchases made tied to the settlement. The consumer has to be a resident of a participating state, and purchases could include products such as TV, monitor, or laptop. The states participating are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating companies colluding in TFT-LCD price fixing, and many company executives have been found guilty of colluding to fix prices.

Consumers who bought a TV, monitor or laptop computer with an LCD flat-panel screen from a retailer between 1999 and 2006 paid inflated prices and can apply for cash reimbursement until Dec. 6, officials announced Tuesday.

The announcement comes as a result of a settlement in a lawsuit that claims nine leading electronics manufacturers - Samsung, LG Display, Hitachi, Sharp, Toshiba, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, HannStar Display Corp. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics - reaped "billions of dollars in illegal profits" by price fixing.

The lawsuit alleged the manufacturers conspired to limit production of, and illegally raise prices for, LCD flat-screen TVs, monitors and laptops, according to Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen"s office. The screens were sold to purchasers, who ultimately passed on the overcharges to consumers. The companies also monitored retail prices in the United States "to ensure that the cartel had set profit-maximizing prices" for the LCD panels, according to the lawsuit involving Wisconsin.

Under the settlements, eligible consumers and businesses across the country will be able to collect $25, $100, $200 or more by answering a few simple questions about the number of LCD items they bought. The exact payment depends how many products were purchased and how many claims are filed.

"This class action against international price fixers allows individual class members to recover a significant portion of what was illegally taken from them and acts as a warning to others that those who fix prices illegally will not gain from their wrongdoing," Van Hollen said in a statement Tuesday. "Although we are sometimes bombarded with these class action notices, the amount available for consumers who purchased LCD TVs, laptops and monitors is significant and I encourage eligible purchasers to file claims."

Dana Brueck, a spokeswoman for the attorney general"s office, said the state also reached an out-of-court settlement with Epson, so consumers who purchased Epson products may also be eligible for a payment through the same process.

Sharp, Hitachi and Samsung agreed to fix prices and limit the supply of LCD panels starting some time before 1999. As production increased in South Korea and Taiwan, the conspiracy expanded to the other manufacturers.

"The participating defendants typically discussed how to raise prices and reached agreements on target prices, floor prices, and/or price ranges for . . . LCD panel sales," the lawsuit alleges. "They also discussed their pricing regarding specific customers and reached agreements as to how to deal with customers" requests for discounts. The participating defendants also typically reached agreements to limit the production of . . . LCD panels by setting target production levels, delaying capacity expansion, slowing assembly line volume . . . and other mechanisms."

The settlement releases all claims of indirect purchasers including consumers, businesses and state government in Wisconsin. Companies that purchased LCD panels directly from the manufacturers are still pursuing in lawsuits in California.

No receipts or other documents are required for small claims. To get more information about the settlements or to file a claim online, visit www.LCDclass.com or call the LCD settlement notice administrator at (855) 225-1886.

Consumers who may have moved since the historic $1.1 billion nationwide LCD settlement was announced in October 2012 should notify the settlement administrators about their new address to see if their check can be re-sent. (Contact info in the bullet points below.)

The checks sent to consumers last fall were $43.49 per consumer for every computer or laptop claimed and $86.98 for each LCD TV. For consumers who claimed several items, that adds up to a couple hundred dollars. The deadline to file a claim was Dec. 6, 2012.

Wisconsin consumers, businesses and public entities received a total of more than $27 million from the settlement. In addition, the state of Wisconsin received $1.5 million in penalties.

The settlement was the result of a lawsuit by 24 states alleging that nine leading electronics manufacturers -- Samsung, LG Display, Hitachi, Sharp, Toshiba, Au Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, HannStar Display Corp. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics -- reaped "billions of dollars in illegal profits" by price fixing.

The lawsuit alleged that the manufacturers conspired to limit production of, and illegally raise prices for, LCD flat-screen TVs, monitors and laptops. The screens were sold by retailers between 1999 and 2006. For more details on the allegations, see this Public Investigator story.

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,

In South Korea, regulators imposed the largest fine the country had ever imposed in an international cartel case, and fined Samsung Electronics and LG Display ₩92.29 billion and ₩65.52 billion, respectively. AU Optronics was fined ₩28.53 billion, Chimmei Innolux ₩1.55 billion, Chungwa ₩290 million and HannStar ₩870 million.

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.

(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.

The accord calls for Samsung to pay $240 million, Sharp $115.5 million and Taiwan-based Chimei Innolux Corp $110.3 million, settlement papers filed on Friday with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco show.

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.

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.

A jury in a Minnesota bankruptcy court has found the U.S. arm of Bank of Montreal BMO-T liable for US$564-million in damages in a lawsuit related to one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history, and the bank will take a $1.1-billion charge as it prepares to appeal the decision.

It awarded US$484-million in compensatory damages as well as nearly US$80-million in punitive damages in favour of the trustee in bankruptcy proceedings for companies controlled by Thomas Joseph Petters, who was convicted in 2008 of leading a nearly $2-billion fraud and was a client of a bank later acquired by BMO.

The trustee is trying to recover money for victims of the fraud. The compensatory damages were about one quarter of the US$1.9-billion that the trustee had sought.

BMO said in a written statement that it is disappointed with the ruling, “which is not supported by the evidence or the law,” and the bank “intends to pursue all available legal options including appealing the jury verdict and award.” The bank also said that according to the terms of a prior settlement in another Petters-related case, “BMO Harris is entitled to recover approximately 21 per cent of any amount that it pays to the trustee.”

The lawsuit began in 2012 and alleged that Milwaukee-based Marshall and Ilsley Bank, which BMO acquired in 2011, and a predecessor bank facilitated a Ponzi scheme run by Mr. Petters between 1999 and 2008. Mr. Petters was revealed to have been running a US$1.9-billion fraud over a 15-year span – at the time, the largest Ponzi scheme in history, but later surpassed by a fraud led by Bernie Madoff. Mr. Petters was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison.

Michael Collyard, a lawyer at Robins Kaplan LLP acting for the trustee, said it will also seek prejudgment interest that could bring the total award to more than US$1-billion if its arguments are successful. Mr. Collyard intends to seek 10-per-cent annual interest, which he says is allowed by Minnesota law.

As a result, BMO will record a provision of $1.12-billion that includes possible prejudgment interest as well as potential recoveries, which will result in an after-tax charge of $830-million to be recorded when the bank releases its fiscal fourth-quarter financial results this month.