lcd panel 1.1 billion settlement supplier

Three major Asian manufacturers have agreed to pay fines of $571 million to US states as part of the ongoing case on price-fixing of LCD displays for electronic devices, officials said Thursday.

The settlements were reach with Japan"s Toshiba Corporation, AU Optronics of Taiwan and LG of South Korea, according to the New York state attorney general"s office.

The case is part of a long-running probe in the United States over a scheme to boost prices for liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptops.

New York is among eight states sharing in the settlement and will get some $10 million through recovery for government purchases and penalties, in addition to restitution to consumers.

The companies in the latest round of settlements agreed to pay $543.5 million to settle antitrust claims and two firms will pay $27.5 million in fines and penalties to the states.

Rival LCD makers met in secret in karaoke bars, tea rooms, and hotel conference rooms in Taiwan to set prices rather than letting market forces prevail, according to US officials.

When all settlements are in place, officials said consumers in 24 states and the US city of Washington will be eligible for compensation totaling $692 million.

The U.S. Department of Justice obtained more than $1.35 billionfrom criminal antitrust offenders during FY 2012, its highest annual total to date.[1] That includes an estimated $1.13 billion in criminal fines and nearly $220 million in restitution, penalties, and disgorgement paid to state and federal agencies. The $1.13 billion in criminal fines exceeds the previous high of $1 billion from FY 2009 and reflects continued success by the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (“DOJ” or “Division”) in targeting hard-core international and domestic cartels.

The DOJ not only obtained record fines in FY 2012, it also reconfirmed its ability to secure convictions of corporate and individual defendants in high-profile jury trials. The Division historically had mixed results, as we discussed in our 2008 Year-End Criminal Antitrust Update, securing convictions in jury trials.[2] In FY 2012, however, the Division obtained convictions in four jury trials. It obtained another conviction after a trial in early FY 2013. Most importantly, the Division prevailed in a high-stakes case widely viewed as a test of its ability to obtain jury verdicts against foreign corporations that participate in international cartels. After an eight-week trial, the Division secured convictions against AU Optronics Corporation, its U.S. subsidiary, and two senior executives for their roles in price fixing certain TFT-LCD panels. The jury acquitted two executives and deadlocked on a third, who was later retried and convicted.[3] The AU Optronics trial was also significant because it marked the first time the Division litigated the “twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss” issue that underlies the alternative fine calculation provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d).[4]

Competition authorities other than the DOJ also achieved notable results in 2012. The European Commission imposed the largest fine in EU history, $1.94 billion (€1.47 billion), against seven companies for their participation in collusion related to cathode ray tubes used in televisions and computer monitors. The fine brought the total fines levied during 2012 to pre-financial crisis levels and more than tripled the level reached in year 2011. China’s competition authorities obtained record fines for domestic violations and opened their first investigations related to global cartel activity. We expect increased enforcement activity from China following the recent execution of Memoranda of Understanding between China and both the United States and the European Union competition authorities. Additionally, the Competition Commission of India imposed a record fine of Rs 6,307 crore ($1.1 billion) on 11 cement manufacturers and the Cement Manufacturers’ Association.

The Antitrust Division secured all-time record payments totaling more than $1.35 billion from its criminal investigations in FY 2012.[9] The largest fines were obtained in two of the Division’s most high-profile investigations over the last decade:  the TFT-LCD panel investigation and the auto-parts investigation. As discussed in more detail below, AU Optronics Corporation was fined $500 million following a closely watched eight-week trial, equaling the largest criminal antitrust fine in history. Yazaki Corporation was fined $470 million as part of the DOJ’s investigation into the automotive parts industry, the third-largest criminal antitrust fine in history.[10]

In January,[18] the DOJ announced that Yazaki Corporation agreed to plead guilty to Sherman Act violations related to wire harnesses, instrument panel clusters, and fuel senders. Yazaki agreed to pay $470 million in criminal fines–the third-largest fine in the Division’s history.[19] In addition, six former Yazaki executives have pleaded guilty and been sentenced to prison terms ranging from 14 months to 22 months. An additional Yazaki executive may still face individual prosecution. Also in January, DENSO Corporation agreed to pay a $78 million criminal fine for fixing the prices of electric and heater control panels. Two former DENSO executives have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced to prison, while another five executives may still face prosecution.[20] Since then, Fujikura Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay a $20 million criminal fine for its price-fixing and bid-rigging conduct relating to automotive wire harnesses.[21] Two Fujikura executives may face prosecution.[22]

In April, G.S. Electech Inc. agreed to plead guilty for engaging in price fixing and bid rigging with respect to speed sensor wire assemblies used in anti-lock braking systems.[23] One G.S. Electech executive may still face prosecution.[24] In June, Autoliv Inc. agreed to pay a $14.5 million criminal fine for its participation in price fixing for seatbelts, air bags, and steering wheels.[25] Three executives face potential prosecution.[26] In August, Japan-based Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty for conspiring to fix the prices of instrument panel clusters installed in cars sold in the United States. One executive faces potential charges.[27] Then, in late September, TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH, a German entity, became the second company to plead guilty for engaging in price fixing relating to occupant safety systems, agreeing to pay a fine of $5.1 million; only one executive in Germany was “carved out” of the agreement’s individual immunity protections.[28] On October 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. had agreed to plead guilty and pay $17.7 million for its role in fixing prices of heater control panels. Tokai Rika also pleaded guilty to one count of Obstruction of Justice for deleting relevant electronic and paper data after becoming aware that the FBI had executed a search warrant of Tokai’s U.S. subsidiary.[29] Five executives face potential prosecution.[30]

AU Optronics and its U.S. subsidiary became the first corporate defendants in an international cartel case to go to trial in more than a decade.[38] As things currently stand, the Antitrust Division has achieved a significant victory. It secured convictions of AU Optronics, its U.S. subsidiary, and three executives for their roles in collusion as to large-sized TFT-LCDs. But the jury acquitted two junior executives and the sentences imposed to date on both the corporations and the individuals have been less severe than the sentences the DOJ sought. After having obtained a jury finding that the gains from the price-fixing conspiracy exceeded $500 million, the DOJ requested that the maximum fine allowed under the Alternative Fines Act–twice the gains or $1 billion–be imposed on AU Optronics. After extensive post-trial briefing, Judge Illston adopted the recommendation of the probation office and sentenced AU Optronics to pay a fine of $500 million, observing that “the $1 billion fine requested by the Government, although dramatic, is simply substantially excessive to the needs of this matter.”[39] The Court expressed its preference that additional sums were better paid in restitution to any victims of AU Optronics’ conduct than to the government.[40] No fine was sought, or ordered, against the U.S. subsidiary. The Court also ordered that both AU Optronics and its subsidiary be placed on probation, establish an antitrust compliance program, and that each retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for three years.[41]

Since beginning its TFT-LCD investigation in late 2006, the DOJ has charged 22 executives and eight companies with participating in collusion in that industry. This has resulted in fines totaling more than $1.39 billion. Additionally, 12 executives have been sentenced to serve a combined total of 4,871 days in prison.[47]

The Division continued to wrap up the few remaining open cases from its air cargo investigation, which has secured more than $1.9 billion in criminal fines to date–the largest amount for a single investigation in Division history.

International cooperation on global antitrust investigations has been central to the Antitrust Division for well over a decade. Our 2011 Year-End Criminal Antitrust Update reported that 96% of the $6.1 billion obtained in criminal antitrust fines between FY 1997 and FY 2010 stemmed from prosecutions of international cartels. The trend continued in FY 2011; 97% of the $6.4 billion in criminal antitrust fines received between FY 1997 and FY 2011 were imposed in connection with the prosecution of international cartel activity.[82] As another sign that investigations continue to feature international efforts, the percentage of grand juries opened that were associated with subjects or targets located in foreign countries increased from 25% in FY 2010 to 35% in FY 2011.[83]

The European Commission (“EC” or “Commission”) achieved record results in 2012, a year that saw action in five separate cartel cases covering various industries. As discussed in our 2012 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, the EC was extremely active in the first half of the year. Between January and August, the EC imposed fines for infringement of Article 101 in the window mountings, freight forwarding, and water management products industries. In addition, the EC re-imposed previously annulled penalties against Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and Toshiba Corporation for infringements with respect to their alleged participation in a gas insulated switch gear cartel.

While the second half of the year saw a decline in the number of enforcement decisions, it brought the largest fine the Commission has ever imposed. This fine, amounting to approximately $1.94 billion (€1.47 billion), was imposed in December against seven companies for their participation in an infringement of Article 101 related to cathode ray tubes used in televisions and computer monitors during the period from 1996 until 2006.[98]

In total, in 2012 the Commission fined 37 companies approximately $2.48 billion (€1.88 billion) for infringements in the sectors of window manufacturing, gas-insulated gear, freight forwarding, water management, and cathode ray tubes.[99]

Not all of these fines were the result of contested proceedings. The proceedings concerning water management products resulted in a settlement between the Commission and the companies involved (Flamco, Reflex, and Pneumatex), making it the sixth settlement since the EC adopted the cartel settlements procedure. Flamco and Reflex were fined a total of approximately $17 million (€13.66 million) while Pneumatex received full immunity under the Commission’s leniency program.[100]

Finally, as mentioned above, the last and largest fine in 2012–and in the EC’s history–was imposed in early December against seven companies for operating what the EC described as two cartels in the sector of cathode ray tubes. That activity allegedly spanned the better part of a decade. The EC described these as being “among the most organised cartels that the Commission has investigated.”[101] The fines imposed in the cathode ray tubes matter were as follows:

Across these efforts, the importance of negotiated procedures, whether settlement[103] or commitments decisions, became clear: they are now a key tool for enforcing competition policy in the European Union. For example, on June 18, 2012, the EC accepted legally binding commitments Siemens and Areva proposed to alleviate concerns that a non-competition clause in their agreement to establish joint venture Areva NP restricted competition in nuclear technology markets. The EC found the clause was excessive as it prohibited Siemens from competing against Areva NP’s non-core and core products and services for at least three years after Siemens withdrew from the company.[104] The EC accepted the companies’ commitments that substantially reduced the product scope and duration of the non-compete obligation.

The food sector has been under scrutiny for many years, with approximately 120 national investigations finding an infringement of competition law. Vice President Almunia indicated that the food sector will remain on the EC’s work program for the coming years and in fact, in January 2012, set up a task force dedicated to the food markets. Later in the year, 13 unspecified companies active in the production and/or distribution of retail food packaging received Statements of Objections concerning alleged bid rigging, price fixing, market sharing, customer allocation, and exchange of commercially sensitive information.[111] In addition, four unspecified traders of North Sea shrimps received a Statement of Objections concerning possible collusion to fix prices and allocate customers in at least the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Belgium.[112]

In August 2012, the ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court in Sydney against Renegade Gas Pty Ltd and Speed-E-Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd. The ACCC alleged that these companies, through their senior executives and sales staff, gave effect to an anti-competitive arrangement, which included not supplying liquid petroleum gas cylinders for forklifts to each other’s customers.[121]

Additionally, on December 14, 2012, CADE proposed a new regulation for settlement procedures in antitrust investigations. This procedure, if adopted, would provide companies that agree to cooperate after the initial leniency applicant the opportunity to better anticipate the value of that cooperation decision. Although the public consultation on the regulation remains open, the proposed procedure calls for a commission of CADE officials to negotiate the settlement agreement and then present it to a tribunal for approval. The new draft regulation also provides for the possibility to request confidentiality of the negotiations and extends the requirement of admission of anticompetitive practices and the duty to cooperate from leniency procedures to all settlement procedures in cartel investigations. Under the proposed rules, fines imposed for cartel infringements may be reduced depending on the parties’ cooperation with CADE and the moment of execution of the settlement. The first settlement would reduce the estimated fine between 30% and 50%, the second settlement between 25% and 40%, and all other settlements up to 25%. If the investigation has already been completed, and the case is pending before a tribunal, the settlement would reduce the estimated fine up to 15%.

Additionally, China launched its first investigation into extraterritorial conduct this past year, examining meetings by TFT-LCD manufacturers from 2001 to 2006. The investigation was notable as it marked the first time the country had prosecuted global conduct. The investigation also brought record fines. On January 4, 2013, NRDC fined LCD manufacturers a total of RMB 353 million (approx. $56.7 million), by far the agency’s largest antitrust penalty. The fines imposed were reduced in light of each company’s cooperation. Because the prosecuted behavior had concluded in 2006, the cases were brought under China’s Price Law rather than the 2008 Antimonopoly Law, which likely would have resulted in higher fines.

2012 was not a sweet year for German candy makers. The Bundeskartellamt fell hard on Haribo, imposing approx. $3.34 million (€2.4 million) in sanctions for anti-competitive exchanges of information. The proceedings against the candy manufacturer were triggered when Mars Inc., the successful leniency applicant, disclosed “four party talks” whereby the companies involved gained knowledge of demands from the retail trade for rebates from the other confectionery manufacturers as well as information about the manufacturers’ reaction to these demands.[131]

The Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) imposed a record fine of Rs 6,307 crore (approx. $1.1 billion) on 11 cement manufacturers and the Cement Manufacturers’ Association (“CMA”).[136] The CCI alleged that the companies coordinated, through the CMA, with respect to the price and production of concrete, with the result being “not only detrimental to the cause of the consumers but also to the whole economy since cement is a crucial input in [the] construction and infrastructure industry.”[137] Media reports indicate that the CCI lacked direct evidence of coordination among the cement companies and, instead, relied on circumstantial evidence derived from output and capacity data, price hikes, economic growth rates, construction activity, and the companies’ profit margins.[138] The fines imposed on the cement companies equaled 50% of their profits for FY 2009–2010 and FY 2010–2011.[139] Several of the companies indicated their intent to appeal the fines to the Competition Appellate Tribunal.[140] During 2012, the CCI also fined ten explosives companies a total of approximately $10.7 million (Rs 600 million)[141] and opened cartel investigations against car manufacturers.[142]

The JFTC also brought two administrative cases of bid rigging in the sectors of automotive parts[149] and poly-styrol blocks[150] and imposed fines totaling respectively $40 million (¥3.3 billion) and $2.4 million (¥202 million).

In June 2012, the NMa fined two agricultural cartels $28.9 million (€23 million) for price fixing and dividing the market.[151] It is also worth highlighting that in July 2012, the NMa imposed personal fines on two former Greenchoice executives.[152] The fines, each amounting to roughly $626,400 (€450,000), were imposed as a follow-up action to the antitrust fine imposed in 2011 to their former employer Greenchoice, which was sanctioned approximately $10.02 million (€7.2 million).

During the second half of 2012, the Competition Commission of South-Africa (“CCSA”) reached settlements in several ongoing investigations. In November 2012, the CCSA reached an agreement with Astral Operations regarding its involvement in collusive practices with competitors to fix prices in the poultry market and Astral agreed to pay a penalty amounting to R16.7 million (approx. $2.3 million). In a settlement in December 2012, Foodcorp admitted to participating in a pricing cartel in the milling sector and agreed to pay R88.5 million (approx. $12.2 million). The CCSA had already reached settlements with other participants including Premier Foods, Tiger Brands, and Pioneer Foods.[157]

As previously reported, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) had a very active year. The Seoul High Court affirmed KRW 2.1 billion fine (approx. $2 million) imposed by KFTC in 2010 against Thai Airways International for the air cargo cartel.[159]

On December 20, 2012, the Spanish Parliament gave the first approval to a controversial bill proposing to merge the National Competition Commission (“CNC”) with seven other sector-based regulatory entities into a newly created National Commission for Markets and Competition (“Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia” or “CNMC”). A second approval, expected in March 2013, is needed to put the project into place. The new Authority, which was justified by the Government on grounds of cost-rationalization (savings of around $37 million (€28 million) are expected), has faced fierce opposition from the opposition parties in Parliament and triggered criticism from both the European Commission and most of the authorities to be merged.[161]

WEKO reached a settlement with four freight forwarders–Agility Logistics, Deutsche Bahn AG/Schenker, Kühne + Nagel International AG and Panalpina Welttransport–bringing to a close its investigation into price fixing. The settlement imposed a fine, totaling $6.7 million (CHF 6.2 million). Deutsche Post AG/DHL received full immunity under the Swiss leniency program.[166]

As reported in our 2012 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, the OFT found that the pricing practices regarding passenger fuel surcharges of British Airways (BA) and Virgin Atlantic Airways (VAA) constituted an infringement of competition law. VAA received full immunity under the leniency program. The OFT reduced the penalty it imposed against BA in 2007 from approximately $195 million to $93 million (£121 million to £58.5 million) due to BA’s cooperation with the investigation and admission of wrongdoing.

The OFT also confirmed that, as with the EC, settlement procedures are a key tool for competition enforcement. The OFT accepted legally binding commitments offered by the three largest electrical retailers Dixons, Comet, and Argos to improve the way the extended warranties market works, following a market study that raised several competition concerns. In addition, eight NHS Hospital Trusts gave voluntary assurances that they will no longer exchange commercially sensitive information about Private Patient Unit prices to ensure compliance with competition law.

Additionally, during 2012 the OFT referred several industries to the Competition Commission (CC), including private motor insurance[170] and private health care.[171] The CC was also performing market investigations into movies on pay TV, statutory audit services, aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete.[172]

[3]   See United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:09-cr-00110 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012); Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Taiwan-Based AU Optronics Corporation, Its Houston-Based Subsidiary and Former Top Executives Convicted for Role in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy (Mar. 13, 2012), available athttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/March/12-at-313.html; see also United States v. Shiu Lung Leung, No. 3:09-cr-00110 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012); Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, AU Optronics Corporation Executive Convicted for Role in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy (Dec. 18, 2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2012/290399.htm.

[7]   The number of defendants sentenced to prison reflects an estimate based upon sentencing information obtained using publicly available data regarding the total prison days sentenced and total number of defendants receiving prison sentences during each fiscal year, and comparing that information against the FY 2012 averages as reported by the Antitrust Division, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Enforcement, Fine and Jail Charts, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/264101.html (last visited Dec. 19, 2012).

[9]   The total criminal fines for FY 2012 is an estimate based on our review of plea agreements announced by the Antitrust Division and other court-imposed criminal fines during the fiscal year. The underlying data for the years prior to FY 2012 can be found at U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Div., Criminal Enforcement Fine and Jail Charts, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/264101.html.

[11]   The chart reflects court-imposed restitution, disgorgement, and penalties during the respective fiscal year stemming from an Antitrust Division investigation. The amounts reflected for FY 2000–2010 reflect only court-imposed restitution reported by the Antitrust Division, as we are unaware of any disgorgement or penalties resulting from an Antitrust Division criminal investigation prior to the municipal bond settlements in FY 2011. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Workload Statistics, FY 2002–2011 [hereinafter FY 2002–2011 Workload Statistics], available athttp://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workload-statistics.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Workload Statistics, FY 2001–2010 [hereinafter FY 2001–2010 Workload Statistics]; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Workload Statistics, FY 2000–2009 [hereinafter FY 2000–2009 Workload Statistics].

[14]   The following charts reflect estimates based upon sentencing information obtained using publicly available data reflecting the total prison days sentenced and total number of defendants receiving prison sentences during each fiscal year, and comparing that information against the FY 2012 averages reported by the Antitrust Division, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Enforcement, Fine and Jail Charts, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/264101.html (last visited Dec. 19, 2012). The underlying data for the years prior to FY 2012 can be found at FY 2000–2009 Workload Statistics, supra note 11, FY 2001–2010 Workload Statistics, supra note 11, and FY 2002–2011 Workload Statistics, supra note 11.

[45]   See Karen Gullo, AU Optronics, Two Executives Convicted of Panel Price Fixing, Bloomberg (Mar. 13, 2012), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-13/au-optronics-two-executives-found-guilty-of-price-fixing-1-.html.

[47]   Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Taiwan-Based AU Optronics Corporation Sentenced To Pay $500 Million Criminal Fine for Role in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy (Sept. 20, 2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2012/287189.pdf.

[48]   Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia Bank on December 31, 2008. News Release, Wells Fargo Bank, Wells Fargo and Wachovia Merger Completed (Jan. 1, 2009), available at https://www.wellsfargo.com/press/2009/20090101_Wachovia_Merger.

[60]   Defendant Florida West’s Motion for Consent to Enter Plea of Nolo Contendere, United States v. Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc., No. 1:10-cr-20864-RNS, (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2012), ECF No. 249.

[61]   Government’s Opposition to Defendant Florida West’s Motion to Enter a Plea of Nolo Contendere, United States v. Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc., No. 1:10-cr-20864 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2012), ECF No. 250.

[98]   Press Release, European Comm’n, Antitrust: Commission fines producers of TV and computer monitor tubes € 1.47 billion for two decade-long cartels (December 5, 2012), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1317_en.htm.

[100]   Press Release, European Comm’n, Antitrust: Commission fines producers of water management products €13 million in sixth cartel settlement, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-704_en.htm.

[101]   Press Release, European Comm’n, Antitrust: Commission fines producers of TV and computer monitor tubes €1.47 billion for two decade-long cartels, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1317_en.htm.

[111]   Press Release, European Comm’n, Antitrust: Commission Sends Statement of Objections to Suspected Participants in Retail Food Packaging Cartel (Sept. 18, 2012) available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1044_en.htm.

[121]   Press Release, Australian Competition and Consumer Comm’n, ACCC Court Action Alleges Sydney Forklift Gas Supply Cartel (Aug. 23, 2012), available at https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-court-action-alleges-sydney-forklift-gas-supply-cartel.

[131]   Press Release, Bundeskartellamt, Haribo Fined for Anti-Competitive Exchange of Information (Aug. 1, 2012), available at http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/press/2012_08_01.php.

[141]   Coal India Ltd. v. Gulf Oil Corp., Case No. 06/2011 (Competition Comm’n of India Apr. 16, 2012), available at https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/062011_0.pdf.

[151]   Katy Oglethorpe, NMa Fines Vegetable Growers, Global Competition Review (June 6, 2012), http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/news/article/31919/%20nma-fines-vegetable-growers/.

[159]   Court Says 16 Airlines Fixed Fuel Surcharge Price, The Korea Herald (Jan. 1, 2012), http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120112001319&cpv=0.

[161]   Council Recommendation on Spain’s 2012 National Reform Programme and Delivering a Council Opinion on Spain’s Updated Stability Programme, 2012-2015, at 22–23, COM (2012) 310 final (May 30, 2012), available at http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/swd2012_spain_en.pdf (commenting that the proposed merger “does not guarantee that it will carry out its regulatory activity in an effective and independent way”).

[167]   See Department for Business, Innovation, & Skills, A Competition Regime for Growth: A Consultation on Options for Reform, 2011, at 61 (U.K.), available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/consumer-issues/docs/c/11-657-competition-regime-for-growth-consultation.pdf.; see alsoSpeech, Ali Nikpay, Office of Fair Trading, UK Cartel Enforcement – Past, Present, Future at 16, 19-24 (Dec. 11, 2012), available athttp://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/speeches/2012/1112.pdf.

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.

is a professor at Nagoya University, Japan. Nakamura, who has been coined as the “Father of GaN Blue LED”, is now a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara, U.S. The 8 million Swedish Krona (US $1.11 million) Nobel Prize money will be split among the three laureates.

The lawsuit created quite an uproar that year. The Tokyo District Court ruled Nichia should pay at least 60.4 billion Japanese Yen (US $560 million) to Nakamura for his contributions in blue LEDs, but lowered the compensation sum to 20 billion Japanese Yen after taking into consideration Nakamura had only asked for that much in the complaint. The court estimated Nichia earned a profit totaling 120 billion Japanese Yen from the blue LED patent invention alone, and initially based the compensation sum on Nakamura’s contributions reaching 50 percent of company profits. Nichia appealed to the initial ruling and the lawsuit dragged on for years before the two parties finally agreed to settle for 844 million Japanese Yen compensation on Jan. 11, 2005. The lawsuit set a precedent in Japan for employees suing employers.