in re tft lcd flat panel antitrust brands

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".

This price-fixing scheme manipulated the playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers to pay artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics.

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,

Chunghwa pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $65 million criminal fine for participating with LG and other unnamed co-conspirators during the five-year cartel period.

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.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for direct purchasers in litigation against the world’s leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays.

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. Plaintiffs charged that defendants conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products containing those panels for over a decade, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those panels and products.

In March 2010, the Court certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, one class of panel purchasers, and one class of buyers of laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions that contained TFT-LCDs.

Over the course of the litigation, the classes reached settlements with all defendants except Toshiba. The case against Toshiba proceeded to trial. In July 2012, the jury found that Toshiba participated in the price-fixing conspiracy. The case was subsequently settled, bringing the total settlements in the litigation to over $470 million.

For his outstanding work in the precedent-setting litigation, California Lawyer recognized Richard M. Heimann with a 2013 California Lawyer of the Year award.

More than five years of litigation after reaching an initial agreement, Sony settled with HannStar for its role in a price-fixing scheme involving liquid crystal displays, as a California judge signed off Tuesday on the parties" agreement to dismiss the claim from multidistrict litigation.

Best Buy Co. will get about $2 million in fees after it won an antitrust suit alleging manufacturers fixed prices in the market for flat-screen liquid crystal display panels, slightly more than it initially won, according to a California federal court order Monday.

The Oregon Attorney General"s Office on Wednesday asked a California federal court to award it up to $4.8 million in costs and attorneys" fees from $21.5 million in deals the state struck with LG, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp and others that settled its claims in multidistrict litigation over alleged price-fixing of liquid crystal display products.

The state of Oregon on Friday asked a California federal judge to approve a $21 million deal with Hitachi, Epson, LG, Sharp, Samsung, AU Optronics, Toshiba and others to end the state"s claims in multidistrict litigation over alleged price-fixing of liquid crystal display products.

Circuit City Stores Inc. and Proview Technology Inc. finalized settlement agreements Tuesday in their suits against AU Optronics Corp. and HannStar Display Corp., as part of multidistrict litigation over alleged price-fixing of liquid crystal display products.

Home Depot USA has reached a settlement in its suit against AU Optronics Corp., part of multidistrict litigation alleging a price-fixing plot involving liquid crystal display products, according to court documents filed with California"s Northern District on Wednesday.

Acer America Corp. on Friday resolved its antitrust suit against Toshiba Corp., Hitachi Ltd. and NEC Corp. that accused liquid crystal display makers of fixing prices, one day after Acer agreed to dismiss claims against LG Display Co. Ltd., according to documents filed in California federal court.

The judge overseeing long-running multidistrict litigation accusing liquid crystal display makers of price-fixing on Tuesday recommended sending suits filed by Office Depot Inc., MetroPCS Wireless Inc. and others back to their original courts for trial.

The trustee for Circuit City Stores Inc. agreed to dismiss his claims against Epson Imaging Devices Corp. in a liquid crystal display price-fixing multidistrict litigation on Tuesday, a day after Proview Technology Inc. stipulated dismissal of its claims against LG Display Co. Ltd. in the same case.

A California federal judge on Friday refused to halt the $1.1 billion settlement in a multidistrict litigation over price-fixing on liquid crystal displays while lender LFG National Capital LLC awaits final judgment in a separate suit seeking a $31.1 million loan repayment from the plaintiffs" attorney.

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

applEcon helped a class of U.S. consumers to obtain settlements totaling $1.082 billion from a cartel of manufacturers of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. LCD panels are flat video displays used in computer monitors, laptop computers, and televisions. The nine manufacturers that comprised the cartel supplied approximately 98% of the worldwide market for large LCD panels during the period the cartel operated, 1999-2006. Sales of LCD panels at issue to class members were approximately $23.5 billion during this period. Representatives of the cartel’s member companies, including senior executives, met about once a month for years to collude on capacity and output, and to fix prices.

The value of applEcon’s approach to such cases, combining deep knowledge of the industry and information available in the case with strong analytical skills, are highlighted by this engagement. In July 2011, defendants submitted nine separate expert reports all responding to Dr. Netz’s analysis. Given only three weeks to file a reply, applEcon analyzed and responded to these reports with factual and analytical evidence countering their various claims. The depth of applEcon’s knowledge of the industry led class counsel to also rely on applEcon to provide critical assistance on issues related to both the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) and ascertainability, both of which are primarily legal, as opposed to economic, matters. applEcon’s depth of knowledge also led other firms in related litigation to rely on us for our understanding of the massive volume of disparate data produced by the various defendants.

Over the course of the four and a half year engagement, applEcon supported class attorneys at virtually every stage of this complex case. applEcon submitted nine expert reports and affidavits and helped class attorneys address a wide range of issues, including: class certification, discovery, damages, pass-through of overcharges to indirect purchasers, class de-certification, cartel effectiveness and causation of antitrust harm, class members’ ability to ascertain their claims, a Daubert challenge, a motion to dismiss based on FTAIA, and responses to several additional motions for summary judgment. applEcon was preparing trial testimony when the last of the defendants, AUO, LG, and Toshiba, settled with the indirect purchaser class shortly before trial was to begin.

Suit was brought by representatives of a putative class of U.S. purchasers of products containing large LCD panels, alleging that the cartel caused the prices they paid for LCD products to be above competitive levels, in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Attorneys for the indirect purchaser class faced a myriad of complications: an LCD panel may change hands several times as it passes from the LCD manufacturer to product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers before an end consumer ultimately takes it home as a component of a monitor, laptop, or television. Proof of antitrust harm required establishing that defendants overcharged their direct customers and that the cartel’s overcharges were passed through the length of the distribution chain resulting in elevated prices for end consumers purchasing products containing LCD panels. Calculating damages to end consumers required quantifying both the overcharge to direct purchasers as well as the pass-through rate.

Because the cartel members were based in foreign countries, class attorneys also faced the challenge of demonstrating that the cartel’s actions had a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on domestic commerce” in order to meet FTAIA requirements. applEcon drew upon its extensive experience in demonstrating pass-through and common proof of damages as it helped attorneys for the class to meet these challenges. Judge Susan Illston relied on applEcon’s pass-through analyses when she certified the indirect purchaser class, and cited Dr. Netz’s pass-through testimony in her order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on FTAIA, writing that the “increased price of the components caused the prices of finished products in the United States to increase. If that’s not ‘direct,’ it’s difficult to imagine what would be.”

Complications multiplied due to the fact that the conspiracy involved nine defendants based in three foreign countries, with multiple divisions across the globe, some involved in multiple stages of production. For example, Samsung was a producer of both LCD panels and televisions containing LCD panels. Whereas applEcon has long been accustomed to large, complex cases, with mountains of documents and data, we soon discovered that ordinary complications are compounded by multiple defendants, multiple teams of opposing attorneys and expert witnesses, and multiple datasets, each with unique characteristics. We enjoy developing systems that improve the efficiency of our operations, and methods we developed in previous complex litigation allowed us to meet the challenges of this case in a cost-effective manner.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Liaison Counsel Elizabeth Pritzker represented a certified class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in a multi-district antitrust class action alleging price-fixing by foreign and domestic manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels and products. The case resulted in class settlements of $473 million, and an $87 million jury verdict before trebling.TFT-LCDis considered to be one of the largest antitrust MDL actions ever in the United States. The case was litigated and tried to verdict before Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston.

Berger Montague served on the Plaintiffs’ executive committee in In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, a class action lawsuit against the world’s leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (“TFT-LCDs”) and products incorporating TFT-LCDs.

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. The Plaintiffs, who directly purchased from a Defendant the TFT-LCDs or the products containing them, alleged the Defendants fixed the prices of the TFT-LCDs, causing the Plaintiffs to pay more than they should have.

On July 3, 2012, a federal jury found that the remaining defendant, Toshiba Corporation, participated in the conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCDs and returned a verdict for the plaintiff class.

After trial, Toshiba agreed to resolve the case by paying the class $30 million to resolve the case. With the Toshiba settlement, Berger Montague and other class counsel obtained over $473 million from the defendants in this action.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

We want to make sure you do not miss the announcement of the historic settlement of one of our cases that could mean $25, $100, $200 or more in your pocket.

Since 2007, Minami Tamaki partner Jack Lee has served as the Court-appointed Liaison Counsel for consumers, known as “indirect purchasers,” in a class action against ten leading international companies for unlawfully conspiring to fix prices of LCD panels used in laptops, desktop monitors, and flat screen televisions. The case is IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL Case No. 1827, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

The indirect purchasers we represent include individual and private companies in 24 states and the District of Columbia that purchased laptops, monitors, and TVs containing LCD panels for use (and not for resale) from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2006.

This litigation has resulted in settlements totaling approximately $1.1 billion, the largest amount ever obtained for consumers who bought products indirectly from retailers and resellers, and not directly from the original manufacturer. The net proceeds of the settlement, after attorneys’ fees and costs, will be distributed to consumers and businesses that submit claim forms.

We believe it is likely that you, like tens of millions of other consumers, may have purchased one or more of the products at issue in this case during the seven year period that the price-fixing occurred. We hope that you will take advantage of the opportunity to recover any unlawful overcharges you paid as a result of this conspiracy.

Consumers and businesses in the District of Columbia and the following 24 states are eligible to participate in this settlement:  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.

Eligibility requirements and instructions on the claims process are available online at the web site: https://lcdclass.com/Home.aspx.The deadline for filing claims is December 6, 2012. Eligible consumers will be able to collect $25, $100, $200 or more by answering a few simple questions about the number of LCD flat screen TVs, monitors, and laptops they bought from 1999 to 2006. The exact amount of each payment will depend upon the number of products purchased and the number of claims filed. No receipts or other documents are required for small claims.

We believe that the eligibility requirements and claims process described on the web site are clear and simple. However, if you have questions or would like assistance in preparing your claim, we invite you to contact our toll-free LCD help line at 1-855-225-1886 or via e-mail at info@lcdclass.com.

While Minami Tamaki LLP is pleased to announce this settlement and to have played a substantial role in this momentous litigation, we will ultimately measure our success by the benefits actually received by consumers eligible to share in the proceeds, including our friends and clients. We are therefore notifying you of this opportunity, urging you to submit your claim, and offering whatever assistance you feel you may need to realize the maximum benefit available to you. We also encourage you to pass this information on to your friends, family members, and colleagues who may be interested in making claims for their share of this settlement.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.