lcd panel 1.1 billion settlement factory

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.

Dozens of state attorney generals, including Florida"s, sued the makers of  thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels, or TFT-LCD Panels, for price control violations.

Thesuit, which was filed in April 2011, claimed that Toshiba, Samsung, Hitachi, Sharp and other electronics companies "conspired to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of TFT-LCD Panels, and to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to limit the production of TFT-LCD Panels."

TOKYO (Reuters) - Sony Corp will likely invest more than 100 billion yen ($1.1 billion) in a planned liquid crystal display TV panel venture with Sharp Corp, the Nikkei business daily reported on Friday.

Sony announced last year that it planned to take a 34 percent stake in a joint venture with Sharp to manage a 380 billion yen LCD panel factory in western Japan, but the two sides have not come to a final agreement on the stake and investment split.

The two companies will finalize plans for the joint venture by the end of July, with Sony’s initial investment likely to be about 50-60 billion yen and eventually climbing to more than 100 billion yen, the Nikkei said.

The deal is aimed at allowing Sony to secure enough panels for the growing LCD TV market while giving Sharp a partner to help shoulder the cost of the plant.

Sharp has said that it planned to start operations at the LCD plant in the western Japanese city of Sakai in October to meet recovering flat TV demand.

The factory will be the world’s first plant that handles so-called 10th-generation glass substrates, which are bigger than earlier-generation substrates and help reduce per-panel production costs.

(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.

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.

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.

Sony"s new B170 Walkman has a bass boost button, stereo FM radio, a voice recording function, a 3-line monochrome LCD and a claimed 18 hours of music playback.28 Mar, 2012, 06.22 AM IST

Samsung will pay 1.08 trillion won ($935 million) in cash for Sony"s stake in S-LCD Corp., a venture formed in 2004, the Suwon.27 Dec, 2011, 06.49 AM IST

Vedanta Group"s owner Anil Agarwal is setting up the country’s first LCD panel manufacturing plant in Maharashtra with an investment of $10 billion.13 Feb, 2016, 04.32 AM IST

China today penalised Samsung and LG, along with four firms from Taiwan for manipulating the prices of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels in the Chinese mainland.04 Jan, 2013, 08.23 PM IST

In contrast to FY 2009, the pace of obtaining huge criminal fines by the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division ("DOJ" or "Antitrust Division") slowed — at least temporarily — marking a reduction from over $1 billion in FY 2009 to $555 million in FY 2010;

Public antitrust enforcement by jurisdictions outside the United States (particularly in Europe) ended the year on a strong note, with the European Commission imposing total fines in excess of €3 billion ($3.96 billion).

In Fiscal Year 2010,[1] the Antitrust Division filed 60 criminal cases and obtained $555 million in criminal fines for illegal conduct.  In these cases, 21 corporations and 63 individuals were charged.  Though the first quarter of FY 2010 got off to a fast start with almost a quarter billion dollars in fines obtained, the remainder of the year tapered off — particularly when compared to the last three years.  The $555 million in fines imposed in FY 2010 represents a 44.5% decline from FY 2009, and 2010 was the first year since 2005 in which total fines did not increase from the prior year.

As the table above indicates, the majority of the fines imposed in 2010 related to DOJ’s ongoing investigation into the air cargo industry but came after the end of FY 2010.  The largest fine during this period, however, was the $220 million fine imposed on Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. in the TFT-LCD investigation early in FY 2010.

Increasing fines in the international arena also reduced the significance of any relative ebb of fines assessed in the United States.  2010 was a significant year for international antitrust fines, reversing what appeared to be a downward trend.  The European Commission, which in recent years has levied the largest such fines, announced fines against ten airlines totaling €799 million ($1.1 billion) as part of its investigation into the coordination of airline surcharges for fuel and security and a total of €649 million ($858 million) in fines against Chimei InnoLux Corp. (formerly known as Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp.), LG Display Co. Ltd., and three other makers of LCD panels in its investigation into an alleged cartel in the market for such panels.  As we highlighted in our mid-year update, the Commission also obtained fines totaling €518 million ($631.1 million) against 17 producers of prestressing steel (metal wires used in concrete construction) earlier this year in its investigation of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in that industry.  In all, the European Commission imposed fines in excess of €3 billion ($3.96 billion) in 2010, an 88% increase from 2009 and the second highest total since 2003.  The chart below shows the increasing pace of enforcement in the European Commission:

Jail sentences in the United States reached the second highest average level ever imposed — 30 months — and an increase of 25% over the prior year.  In FY 2010, 29 individuals received jail sentences that totaled more than 26,000 jail days.  76% of sentenced defendants received jail sentences in 2010 as compared to only 37% in the 1990s.  This dramatic upward trend reflects the Antitrust Division’s continued focus on obtaining jail time against the vast majority of individuals it prosecutes.  These sentences came in a wide variety of industries, including air transportation services, LCD panels, and financial services.[5]

In FY 2010 and FY 2011, several additional guilty pleas were entered and significant fines were handed down as a result of DOJ’s investigation into price-fixing in the TFT-LCD industry.  TFT-LCD panels are the principal component in LCD televisions and computer monitors, and are also used in other consumer electronics products.  Since 2007, a total of twenty executives and eight companies have been charged in the ongoing investigation, and DOJ has obtained more than $890 million in criminal fines.[9]

As we reported in the Gibson Dunn 2010 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, AU Optronics Corp. (and its American subsidiary, AU Optronics America) ("AUO") and six AUO executives were indicted in June.  The AUO trial is scheduled to begin in late 2011 and could signal a departure from the well-settled pattern of multinational corporations resolving criminal exposure through negotiated plea agreements.  Additionally, four executives of the Taiwanese LCD panel maker Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. pled guilty and were sentenced to prison time ranging from 9 to 14 months and received criminal fines ranging from $25,000 to $50,000.  Another former Chi Mei executive, Hsin-Tsung Wang, was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for participating in the conspiracy.  Chi Mei itself pled guilty in December 2009 and agreed to pay a $220 million criminal fine.

Also in connection with the TFT-LCD investigation, in October, former HannStar Display Corp. executive Jui Hung Wu agreed to plead guilty, serve seven months in prison,and pay a $20,000 criminal fine.

Outside the United States, the European Commission announced a total of €649 million ($858 million) in fines against Chimei InnoLux Corp., LG Display Co. Ltd., and three other makers of LCD panels.  The companies were charged with operating a cartel in the market for televisions, computer monitors, and other LCD products between October 2001 and February 2006.  The largest portion of the fine, €300 million, was imposed on Chimei InnoLux.  LG Display was fined €215 million, while AUO was fined €116.8 million.  Chunghwa and HannStar Display Corp. were fined €9 million and €8.1 million, respectively.  Samsung Electronics Co. received full immunity from fines for cooperating with the Commission.  The Commission launched its investigation into the cartel in 2006 alongside the DOJ’s investigation.

To date, in the United States, a total of 21 airlines and 19 executives have been charged in the ongoing investigation into price-fixing in the air cargo industry.  In addition, more than $1.7 billion in criminal fines have been imposed.  Four executives have been sentenced to serve prison time, and charges are pending against the remaining 15 executives.

In Europe, the European Commission announced fines against ten airlines totaling €799 million ($1.1 billion) as part of its investigation into the coordination of surcharges for fuel and security between late 1999 to early 2006.  The airlines fined were Air France-KLM-Martinair (€340 million), British Airways (€104 million), Cargolux Airlines (€79.9 million), Singapore Airlines (€74.8 million), SAS (€70.2 million), Cathay Pacific (€57.12 million), Japan Airlines (€35.7 million), Air Canada (€21 million), Qantas (€8.9 million), and LAN Chile  (€8.2 million).  The Commission also found Lufthansa to have participated in the infringement, but the company received immunity from punishment given its status as the initial leniency applicant.

The European Commission also announced that it had sent statements of objection to several companies in 2010 in connection with its investigation of the industry.  In New Zealand, the Commerce Commission filed proceedings against several shipping logistics companies, including units of the Deutsche Bahn Group, accusing them of agreeing to fix surcharges and other fees for air freight-forwarding services.  The Commerce Commission has reached settlements with two of the defendants.  In addition, competition authorities in Italy and Brazil are reportedly investigating freight-forwarding companies.

Brazil:  Brazil’s antitrust regulators levied the highest fine of any competition authority in 2010 in their investigation of an alleged industrial gas cartel.  Five companies and seven executives were fined 2.9 billion Brazilian reais ($1.66 billion) for allegedly forming the cartel.  The fine was the largest ever assessed by Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense.  White Martins Gases Industriais was ordered to pay the largest portion of the fine, 2.2 billion reais ($1.26 billion).  Other companies fined were:  Linde Gas SA, formerly known as AGA SA; Air Liquide Brazil Ltd.; and Air Products Brazil Ltd.

South Africa:  Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd. will pay 500 million rand ($72 million) to settle several antitrust cases with South Africa’s Competition Commission, including claims that the food distribution company fixed prices for flour and maize.  The settlement is multipronged — Pioneer will pay an administrative penalty, establish a fund to offer favorable financing to small and mid-size businesses in the food industry, adjust its prices, cooperate in seven related antitrust probes, and institute a competition compliance program.  The settlement stems from a February 2010 Competition Tribunal decision fining Pioneer 195 million rand for its alleged participation in a bread cartel, after which Pioneer approached the Competition Commission about reaching a blanket settlement for all outstanding cases against it.

South Africa’s Competition Tribunal approved a 5 million rand ($714,000) settlement between Flo-Tek Pipes and Irrigation (Pty) Ltd. and the South African Competition Commission in a case against a plastic pipes cartel.  The tribunal also approved a similar 7 million rand (U.S. $1 million) settlement with Swan Plastics CC.   Both companies admitted to violating South Africa’s Competition Act and agreed to pay penalties representing six percent of their turnover for 2007.  The Commission brought the case against the two pipe manufacturers and five others in January 2009, accusing the companies of bid-rigging, price-fixing, and market and customer allocation.

South Korea:  South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission voted to impose 1.64 billion won ($1.45 million) in fines and corrective orders on 25 scrap metal processors for allegedly agreeing to set prices for scrap metal products.  From January 2006 through March 2009, according to the allegations, the companies agreed to share information and jointly raise or cut prices, by 10 to 100 won per kilogram.

[3]   This information is taken from a table published on the DOJ website summarizing all historical Sherman Act violations yielding a corporate fine of $10 million or more. The table is available online at: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/264101.html.

[9]   DOJ Press Release, "Ninth Taiwan Executive Indicted For Participating In Global LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy," available online at: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2010/263173.htm (Oct. 14, 2010);  "Overview of 2010 Antitrust Enforcement," Remarks by Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General of Department of Justice Antitrust Division, at the 7th Annual Institute on Corporate Securities and Related Aspects of Mergers and Acquisitions (Oct. 7, 2010).

Commitments of more than $8.5 billion to return facilities to compliance, the highest amount in four years; 28% of those commitments were to address non-compliance in communities with environmental justice concerns.

Proper treatment, minimization, or disposal of 7.6 billion pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, more than in all but one of the past eight years.

Private and federal party cleanup commitments of $1.9 billion, as well as more than $106.1 million for recovery of past costs the Agency spent cleaning up Superfund sites. The cleanup commitment was the fifth largest amount in the history of the program, and $279 million more than in FY 2020.

In fiscal year (FY) 2021, EPA took aggressive early enforcement actions in communities overburdened by pollution. We issued two Clean Air Act (CAA) emergency orders to facilities in the United States Virgin Islands and South Carolina and 47 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) orders to public water systems in vulnerable or overburdened communities, (including Cahokia Heights IL, Clarksburg WV, Jackson MS, and tribal areas); and two Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) emergency orders to facilities handling and storing hazardous materials. In a nationwide settlement with Home Depot, EPA resolved violations of EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule which will result in system-wide changes to ensure that contractors who perform work in homes constructed before 1978 are EPA-certified and follow lead-safe practices. This action will significantly reduce children’s exposure to lead paint hazards in communities. EPA also finalized agreements with parties to clean up lead contamination at Superfund sites adjacent to communities with environmental justice concerns, including one site associated with two residential neighborhoods located near Atlanta’s downtown business district.

President Biden set clear priorities to address the climate crises. Enforcement can be a highly effective tool in addressing climate change. Thousands of facilities across the country are subject to permits or regulations that limit allowable emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), or other compounds that contribute to or exacerbate the effects of climate change. Regulations and permits are only effective if the regulated community complies with their terms and enforcement is an important component of achieving that compliance. In addition to returning facilities to compliance and creating deterrence, enforcement settlements increasingly incorporate remedies that mitigate emissions including through clean and renewable energy projects. Climate change adaptation measures are also incorporated into EPA settlements.

EPA, along with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), announced a settlement with Dow Chemical Company and two subsidiaries, Performance Materials NA Inc. and Union Carbide Corporation, that, in addition to reducing excess emissions of pollutants, will also eliminate thousands of tons of GHG air pollution from four of Dow’s petrochemical manufacturing facilities in Texas and Louisiana.

In FY 2021, EPA concluded 114 civil judicial actions, the highest number in four years. After a consent decree is finalized, the crucial step of EPA’s oversight of the settlement’s implementation begins. Consent decrees often require the installation of pollution control equipment or construction and upgrades of critical infrastructure that may take years to fully implement. Oversight of these required obligations is a critical and, over time, increasing part of the EPA’s enforcement program. Currently the EPA oversees 485 judicial consent decrees for civil regulatory matters. Authorized states are our partners in nearly 40% of these settlements. Each stage of consent decree implementation must be carefully evaluated to ensure that compliance and environmental protection is assured.

On June 10, 2021, EPA finalized a settlement with Dow Chemical Company and two subsidiaries (Dow) to resolve allegations that the companies violated the CAA by failing to properly operate and monitor industrial flares at their petrochemical facilities, which resulted in excess emissions of harmful air pollution. Under the settlement, Dow will spend approximately $294 million to install and operate air pollution control and monitoring technology to reduce flaring and the resulting harmful air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, from 26 industrial flares at the companies’ facilities in Hahnville, La.; Plaquemine, La.; Freeport, Texas; and Orange, Texas. Dow will also operate fence line monitors around the facilities to detect and correct excess benzene emissions and ensure continued protections for nearby communities. Finally, Dow must pay a $3 million civil penalty and perform three state-authorized beneficial environmental projects in Louisiana.

Under the terms of the settlement, Toyota will take steps to ensure compliance and pay a civil penalty of $180 million. This is the EPA"s fifth recent civil enforcement action against automakers that secured at least a nine-figure civil penalty.

On October 19, 2020, the EPA and DOJ agreed to a settlement to resolve allegations that Valero Energy Corporation and a number of its subsidiaries and affiliates (Valero) violated the CAA regarding fuel quality standards and sampling, testing, and reporting requirements at 11 refineries and one import facility.

Under the terms of the settlement, Valero will develop and implement a company-wide fuels management system to help ensure its production of gasoline and diesel fuel complies with EPA standards, implement a mitigation action to offset past emissions at a cost of approximately $3 million, and pay a $2.85 million civil penalty. Valero separately committed to completing two benzene reduction measures at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas that Valero estimates will result in emission reductions of 583 pounds per year and will cost the company $1.775 million to implement.

The settlement also requires installation of pollution control measures at its El Vista Terminal near the Port Arthur Refinery resulting in a reduction of volatile organic compounds emissions of 23 tons per year. The El Vista Terminal is located near a community with environmental justice concerns.

On November 18, 2020, EPA, DOJ, the states of Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, Alabama’s Jefferson County Board of Health, and California’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District finalized a settlement with the Lehigh Cement Company, LLC and the Lehigh White Cement Company, LLC for violations of the CAA. On more than one occasion, the companies failed to obtain pre-construction permits and install and operate the appropriate air pollution control technology for major modifications at its cement manufacturing plants, resulting in significant emissions increases at 11 Portland cement manufacturing facilities located in seven states.

Under the terms of this settlement, the companies will invest in technologies to cut emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide at its 11 Portland cement manufacturing facilities, implement an environmental mitigation project at two facilities, and pay a $1.3 million civil penalty.

On February 9, 2021, EPA, DOJ, the State of Pennsylvania, and American Zinc Recycling (AZR) agreed to a settlement resolving violations of the CAA, CWA, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), and RCRA. AZR violated its CWA national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit by failing to

AZR also violated spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plan requirements for failure to conduct required inspections and training. Additionally, the settlement resolved numerous CAA, EPCRA, and RCRA violations, including excess emissions, recordkeeping, reporting, and training violations.

Under the settlement, AZR will spend an estimated $4.3 million to ensure compliance with environmental requirements, such as improvements to monitoring of equipment, leak-detection equipment installation, and implementation of a dust control plan and a stormwater control plan. AZR will also pay a civil penalty of $3.3 million, to be divided equally between the United States and Pennsylvania.

The settlement requires payment of a $1 million federal civil penalty and improvements to the storm sewer system that will result in significant reductions in the discharge of pollutants, such as sediment, oil and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and bacteria, into Fountain Creek and its tributaries in Colorado Springs. Communities, including those with potential environmental justice concerns, in and downstream of Colorado Springs will also see significant water quality improvements from the settlement. In lieu of paying a civil penalty to the State, the City performed State-approved supplemental environmental projects valued at $1 million that will improve water quality in the Arkansas River, into which Fountain Creek flows south of the City.

On January 11, 2021, EPA, DOJ, and the State of Texas finalized a settlement with the City of Corpus Christi to address its longstanding CWA noncompliance associated with its sewer system, one of the largest in the state with more than 1,100 miles of lines and more than 100 lift stations. The settlement includes specific requirements to address exceeding permitted pollutant limits from its wastewater treatment plant and sanitary sewer overflows, which are unauthorized discharges of raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers. The city agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,136,000 for its violations, which was split equally between the United States and the State of Texas.

On September 28, 2021, EPA and DOJ finalized a civil settlement with Summit Midstream Partners, LLC and Meadowlark Midstream Company, LLC (Summit) to resolve allegations that the companies violated the CWA, which resulted in a discharge of 29 million gallons of produced water from its pipeline near Williston, ND. The spill is believed to be the largest inland spill in history. Under the settlement, Summit will pay $20 million in civil penalties, perform comprehensive injunctive relief including taking concrete steps to prevent future discharges, clean up the contamination caused by the spill and pay $1.25 million in natural resource damages to resolve the civil case. Summit has spent over $50 million to date to clean up the spill under state oversight; ongoing remediation efforts under the civil settlement are expected to continue over the next several years.

On January 20, 2021, EPA and DOJ agreed to a settlement with U.S. Magnesium (USM) to resolve RCRA violations at its Rowley, Utah facility. The settlement includes extensive process modifications at the facility that will reduce the environmental impacts from its operations and ensure greater protection to workers at the plant. This settlement requires construction of a barrier wall around 1,700 acres of the operating portions of the facility to prevent leaks or breaches of hazardous materials to the Great Salt Lake; construction of a filtration plant to treat all wastewaters; and attainment of an additional $10 million dollars by USM in financial assurance to ensure cleanup and closure of the facility.  USM will spend approximately $37 million to implement the RCRA injunctive relief and at least $5.9 million to implement the cleanup remedy under the Superfund program. USM will pay a civil penalty of $250,000.

On December 17, 2020, EPA and DOJ reached a nationwide settlement with Home Depot resolving alleged violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RPP). Home Depot will pay a $20.75 million penalty, the highest civil penalty obtained to date for a settlement under TSCA.

The settlement requires Home Depot to implement a comprehensive, corporate-wide program to ensure that the firm and contractors it hires to perform work are certified and trained to use lead-safe work practices to avoid spreading lead dust and paint chips during home renovation activities. In addition to creating an electronic compliance system to verify the contractors hired are properly certified, Home Depot will require contractors to use a detailed compliance checklist, will conduct thousands of on-site inspections, and will educate professional and lay customers about lead-safe work practices on the internet and in its stores.

On February 16, 2021, EPA, DOJ, and Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc. (Apache) finalized the settlement to resolve alleged violations of the CAA’s chemical accident prevention measures and of federal laws requiring timely notification of ch1. 3rd emical accidents. EPA identified these violations following an anhydrous ammonia release that led to thirteen workers being injured at the Apache facility in St. David, Arizona. Apache, which uses anhydrous ammonia to manufacture ammonium nitrate-based explosives for mining operations and agricultural fertilizers, will pay a $1.5 million civil penalty and make widespread safety improvements to its facility, some of which have already been implemented.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to enhance safety equipment and procedures at the facility, including making improvements to its preventive maintenance tracking system to ensure equipment is being inspected and tested regularly, conducting an audit of its process safety culture with the assistance of a third-party expert, and upgrading its emergency response plan to include installation of an anhydrous ammonia monitoring system and enhanced public notifications.

On August 26, 2021, EPA settled with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to resolve violations of federal laws for the operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks containing diesel fuel at four GSA buildings in New Jersey and New York. The facilities where the violations occurred are the Robert A. Roe Federal Building in Paterson, N.J., the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Newark, N.J., the Silvio J. Mollo Federal Building in Manhattan, and the Alfonse M. D’Amato U.S. Courthouse in Central Islip, N.Y.  Violations at these facilities included failures to conduct required triennial inspections of overfill prevention equipment, ensure operations staff were properly trained, and ensure staff keep records related to the management of storage tanks as required by federal law. Under the settlement, GSA will pay a civil penalty of $107,000 and ensure staff who oversee the tanks at one of the New York facilities are trained and properly manage underground storage tanks.

EPA’s vigorous enforcement program targets the most serious waste and chemical hazards and protects people from exposure to hazardous chemicals and wastes. The work of the Superfund enforcement program is critical to getting Superfund sites cleaned up and preserving taxpayer dollars and the Superfund Trust Fund to address truly abandoned and orphaned sites. In FY 2021, the Agency’s work to require parties to perform and/or pay for cleanup resulted in 89 settlements and orders totaling over $2 billion. The commitments from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) totaled over $1.9 billion, the fifth largest total in the history of the program. The Agency negotiated six prospective purchaser and other third-party settlements totaling more than $16.8 million in cleanup commitments and cost recovery. Additionally, the EPA issued 79 comfort/status letters across the country to address cleanup and promote reuse and redevelopment.

Since the inception of the Superfund program, 9,529 Superfund enforcement instruments, including reuse agreements have been finalized addressing contamination at 3,903 sites across the country. The estimated value of private and federal party commitments to clean up sites is approximately $40.9 billion and commitments for cost recovery total more than $7.5 billion for a combined total of almost $48.4 billion.

In March 2021, EPA issued the largest dollar value unilateral administrative order (UAO) in the history of the program to the City of New York to address cleanup of the Gowanus Canal Superfund site. The city has been ordered to construct and operate two combined sewer overflow (CSO) retention tanks to control contaminated solids discharges. The UAO is estimated to cost $1.1 billion and will take about nine years to implement. The main environmental benefit of this UAO is that during large rain events, the massive sewage holding tanks will hold back raw sewage water which contains hazardous substances from re-contaminating the canal.  Cleanup work within the canal will continue to support redevelopment in the commercial and residential areas adjacent to the canal.

On January 20, 2021, EPA, along with federal, state, and local government parties, finalized an agreement with 12 parties to develop detailed cleanup plans for the Swan Island Basin Project Area, covering approximately 117 acres of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site in Portland, Oregon. The Swan Island area is among the major “hot spot” cleanup areas within the site, with high levels of contamination. This latest cleanup agreement represents nearly 25 percent of the site’s total cleanup area and completes a major milestone to bring 100 percent of the site’s areas requiring active cleanup into the remedial design phase of the Superfund cleanup process. The cleanup work at this site will return the Lower Willamette River to a healthy, working waterway for all and will impact many groups and communities with environmental justice concerns. Roughly 21– 38% of the population living within one mile of the site are part of overburdened communities impacted by contamination, and roughly 36– 47% live below the poverty line. The value of this settlement agreement is estimated at $43 million.

Throughout the negotiation process, EPA Region 9 worked to address community concerns, including excavating DDT contaminated soil from multiple residences, conducting a vapor intrusion study and other activities to address environmental risks resulting from contamination at the sites. The cleanup work resulting from these three settlement agreements, particularly to protect nearby communities’ drinking water resources, reflects the Agency’s focus to actively protect human health and the environment while negotiating with the responsible parties to perform the work.

EPA encourages the cleanup and reuse of contaminated properties by implementing the Superfund landowner liability protections and addressing liability concerns through the use of site-specific tools, including settlement agreements.

A February 2021, settlement regarding the Des Moines TCE Superfund site, a long vacant 43-acre property located in Des Moines, Iowa, provides a clear path for its cleanup and future redevelopment. Dico Inc. and its parent company Titan Tire will pay $11.5 million to settle past and future cleanup costs, civil penalties, and punitive damages, as well as transfer the vacant property to the City of Des Moines, which occurred in May 2021. The city, under the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) provisions of the settlement, will perform additional cleanup and other work, including operation and maintenance of the groundwater system and the site’s asphalt cap. EPA is working closely with the city and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to ensure that reuse of the site is compatible with the cleanup remedy and remains protective of human health and the environment. Currently, the potential redevelopment plans include a 6,300-seat multi-use outdoor stadium as well as a hotel and other mixed-use developments. The cleanup and redevelopment of this long-blighted property will provide numerous economic and social benefits to the community.

EPA"s Superfund Settlements and Work Order Mapper highlights the current cleanup work taking place at privately- and federally-owned Superfund sites across the country resulting from the Agency’s enforcement work to negotiate cleanup settlement agreements or issue orders. The data is current through September 30, 2021.

In 1977, Tagamet, an ulcer medication, became the first ever blockbuster pharmaceutical, earning its manufacturers, GSK, more than US$ 1 billion a year and its creators the Nobel Prize. This was followed by a succession of products, each seemingly more successful than its predecessors. Prozac, the first selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) was launched by Eli Lilly in 1987 and omeprazole, the first proton pump inhibitor (PPI), was introduced by Astra in 1989. Atorvastatin, marketed as Lipitor in 1996, became the world"s best-selling drug of all time, with more than US$ 125 billion in sales over approximately 15 years.

This asymmetric situation is caused by the patents system: the large research pharmaceutical companies invest many billions of dollars searching for new drugs.49,50 The majority of the candidate drugs never make it to the market place because, during development, the drug is found not to work or to have serious side effects that mean it can never be used in patients. However, a small number of new pharmaceuticals do enter the market each year and the patent system ensures that for a limited period of time the innovating company retains exclusive rights to sell the pharmaceutical. When the patent expires anyone is free to manufacture and sell what is now termed a “generic pharmaceutical”. The majority of pharmaceuticals, i.e. all those that are out of patent, are therefore manufactured and sold by the generic pharmaceutical companies. Generic pharmaceutical companies never have an unsuccessful product, whereas the research pharmaceutical companies rarely have a successful one. This has a major effect on the profile of the business, the way in which companies are structured and the way in which they operate.

Why would companies take such risks? The aim is to reduce the time taken to bring a candidate drug to the patient; speed to market is one of the key metrics in this industry and weeks are important. A “blockbuster” pharmaceutical is defined as one that generates US$ 1 billion revenue a year,76 which translates to almost $20 million loss in revenue to the business for every week the product launch is delayed.

Despite the obvious benefits, outsourcing is itself not without risk and the US$ 1.4 billion outsourcing agreement between AstraZeneca and IBM in 2007 for telecommunications and IT was widely seen as a failure and needed to be renegotiated five years later.83

The pharmaceutical industry consists of a set of businesses in which shareholders can be persuaded to invest money with the expectation of receiving a return on their investment. However, this industry is a high-risk business and thus the value proposition presented to potential investors is a little unusual, as is illustrated by the following case study:Company A has identified research that suggests that regulation of target B in human beings shows promise in producing a beneficial outcome for disease C. Company A has also established that, at least in vitro, its candidate drug X has the potential to regulate target B. It wishes to attract shareholders to invest between US$ 500 million and US$ 800 million over the next 12–15 years to develop the candidate into a marketable drug.Investors should be aware that there is no certainty that drug X is actually able to regulate target B safely in vivo, or that any such regulation of the target will actually significantly influence the course of the disease concerned. The company estimates that the odds of success are <100 : 1 against, but that if successful the drug would generate substantial annual profits in the region of US$ 1–5 billion for up to 10 years.

This inevitably produces a substantial number of “orphan diseases”: life-threatening conditions that affect only a small fraction of the population, usually defined as between 1/1000 and 1/5000, which no commercial organisation can afford to investigate, simply because there are insufficient patients from which to recoup the investment cost. As the time and cost of development increases and the useful patent life shrinks, the number of commercially unviable areas also increases. Consequently, a number of separate pieces of legislation86,87 have been enacted which modify the rules on patents, taxation and subsidies to make R&D investment financially viable for these orphan diseases. Pharmaceutical companies are frequently accused of not investing in some areas because they will make too little profit. A recent example was the public outrage that the pharmaceutical industry had not already invested in a vaccine active against Ebola. However, the reality is that investing in areas such as this would inevitably lead to bankruptcy since in such areas the costs are certain to exceed the income, even if a successful product could be invented.

For the next few years it looked as if this analysis was going to be correct as a series of new “blockbuster” pharmaceuticals arrived regularly on the market from the R&D organisations of many of the major research pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, this didn’t last and it turned out that simply “turning the handle” of the R&D machinery did not guarantee that any new products at all would emerge, let alone a stream of novel “blockbusters”. In fact, R&D efficiency in the pharmaceutical industry has suffered a long-term decline. The number of new pharmaceuticals approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms.98

A year later, in 2009, Bernard Munos said in print101 what had been obvious to many in the industry for some time:“Success in the pharmaceutical industry depends on the random occurrence of a few “black swan” products”.

Faced with this “patent cliff”, the industry has adopted two different strategies: firstly, seeking to improve its record of innovation by acquisitions of biotechnology companies, e.g. the acquisition of Medimmune by AstraZeneca in 2007 for US$ 16 billion103 and the acquisition of Human Genome Science by GSK in 2012 for $ 3.6 billion,104 together with a host of other smaller “boutique” companies.

The first of these is the advance of biopharmaceuticals.111 The vast majority of our existing pharmaceuticals consist of relatively small molecules produced by chemical synthesis. However, advances in our understanding of genomics and proteomics, coupled with our increasing technological capability to manufacture very large molecules, are leading to a rapidly growing interest in the use of biological as opposed to chemical-based therapies. The first biopharmaceutical, synthetic insulin, developed by Genentech and marketed by Eli Lilly, was approved for sale in 1982 and by 2013 there were 300 biological pharmaceuticals that had been approved by the US FDA with a further 5400 under development in the USA alone. In 2012, based on worldwide sales, 7 of the top 10 drugs were biopharmaceuticals112 and it is estimated that this area now accounts for more than 40% of all drugs in development.