in re tft lcd flat panel antitrust in stock

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.

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.

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

In 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.

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.

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.

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 long-running case against multiple LCD makers alleged a wide-reaching conspiracy to fix prices on flat screen panels used in monitors, TVs, laptops and smart phones. IMS Consulting & Expert Services clients represented a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs, and the case proceeded to trial against the final remaining defendant, Toshiba Corp. This was one of the few antitrust class actions ever tried to a successful verdict.

IMS Consulting & Expert Services worked closely with co-lead counsel Bruce Simon and Richard Heimann in a series of working meetings to define and refine trial strategy, themes and visual presentations. Over a four-month period, prior to and during trial, the IMS team collaboratively crafted hundreds of graphics for use in opening statement and closing arguments—in addition we worked closely with expert witnesses, developing their teaching slides, and preparing witness cross examination materials for attorneys.

After a six-week trial, jurors needed little time to return a verdict against Defendant Toshiba, finding that they had conspired with other LCD makers to fix prices of flat screen panels. This resulted in a $261 million award against Toshiba.

On September 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit held that where both federal and state law claims are at issue, the federal law of privilege applies to mediation negotiations. In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Sony Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Hannstar Display Corporation, No. 14-15916.

The court held that because at the time the parties engaged in mediation their negotiations concerned (and the mediated settlement included) both federal and state law claims, the federal law of privilege applies. In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation cautions where a case involves both federal and state law claims, the federal privilege law applies to settlement communications. Because federal privilege law (Fed. R. Evid. 408) is more lenient on the use of settlement communications in litigation, attorneys should exercise discretion when engaging in settlement communications.

DocketRemark: Trial Exhibits disposed of in accordance with Local Rule 79-4(c). (msr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2022) (Entered: 07/25/2022)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9596) CLERK"S NOTICE re Exhibits. In accordance with Local Rule 79-4(b), it is requested that counsel withdraw their exhibits by filing a written notice forthwith. If notice is not received within thirty (30) days, the exhibits will be disposed of in accordance with Local Rule 79-4(c). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2022) (Entered: 05/12/2022)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9595) ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting (9594) Motion for Disbursement of Funds in case 3:07-md-01827-SI. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2019) (Entered: 12/12/2019)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9593) ORDER Authorizing Payment. (Disregard previous docket entry, the order was docketed incorrectly). Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 11/26/18. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2018) (Entered: 11/26/2018)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9592) ***ERROENOUE ENTRY. PLEASE DISREGARD. SEE DOCKET #210. *** Authorization to Pay, ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 11/26/18. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2018) Modified on 11/26/2018 (tfS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 11/27/2018 (rcsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2018)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9591) STATUS REPORT Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs" Report on Settlement Fund Distribution and Request for An Order Authorizing Payment of Claim Administration Costs by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Qianwei Fu, #2 Declaration of Amy Lake of Rust Consulting, Inc., Distribution Administrator, Regarding Distribution of Settlement Funds, #3 Proposed Order Authorizing Disposition of Residual Settlement Funds)(Fu, Qianwei) (Filed on 11/19/2018) (Entered: 11/19/2018)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9590) ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting #9589 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Dismissal of Action Against HannStar Display Corporation (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2018) (Entered: 03/07/2018)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9589) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Dismissal of Action Against HannStar Display Corp. filed by Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Sony Electronics, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Bomse, Stephen) (Filed on 3/6/2018) (Entered: 03/06/2018)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9588) ORDER Authorizing Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 1/4/18. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#9587) STATUS REPORT Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Report on Settlement Fund Distribution and Request for an Order Authorizing Distribution of Residual Amounts by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Amy Lake of Rust Consulting, Inc., Distribution Administrator, Regarding Distribution of Settlement Fund, #2 Proposed Order Authorizing Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds)(Fu, Qianwei) (Filed on 12/28/2017) (Entered: 12/28/2017)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#8) CLERK"S NOTICE Advising Counsel of Receipt of Cases from the Eastern District of New York and the Southern District of New York. (Attachments: #(1) Elbaz -v- LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd., et al; #(2) Baker -v- LG Philips LCD Co., et al) (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2007) (Entered: 05/02/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#7) CLERK"S NOTICE of Receipt of Cases from the Western District of Tennessee and the District of New Jersey (Attachments: #(1) Nathan Muchnick, Inc. -v- Sharp Corp., et al; #(2) Markham -v- LG Phillips LCD Co., Ltd., et al; #(3) Harrell, et al -v- LG Phillips LCD Co., Ltd., et al) (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2007) (Entered: 05/01/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#6) ORDER granting withdrawal of Cotchett, Pietre & McCarty Law Office. Signed by Judge Illston on 4/26/07. (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2007) (Entered: 04/27/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#5) TRANSFER ORDER from Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, that the action is transferred to the Northern District of California creating MDL No. M07-cv-1827 SI. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2007) (Entered: 04/27/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

DocketParties improperly added to docket by counsel, cases not officially sent by MDL Panel yet. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2007) (Entered: 04/26/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#4) NOTICE by Crago Corporation Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Williams, Steven) (Filed on 4/25/2007) (Entered: 04/25/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Docket(#1) TRANSFER ORDER from Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, that the action is transferred to the Northern District of California creating MDL No. M 07-cv-1827 SI. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2007) (Entered: 04/20/2007)[+] Read More [-] Read Less

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.

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - South Korea"s LG Electronics Inchas agreed to pay $380 million to resolve a civil lawsuit over price fixing in the liquid crystal display market, the largest amount paid among the ten companies who similarly settled the litigation, a court filing showed on Thursday.

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

An attorney for the plaintiffs on Wednesday disclosed a settlement involving LG, AU Optronics Corpand Toshiba Corp. According to Thursday"s court filing, AU Optronics will pay $170 million, while Toshiba will pay $21 million.

AUO representative Freda Lee said the settlement should not cause material impact to the company’s finance or business in the current or future reporting periods.

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

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

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