TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Class Action
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, serves as Court-appointed Co-Lead class counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs in a certified 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, allege the defendants fixed the prices of the TFT LCDs, causing the plaintiffs to pay more than they should have.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations
From at least January 1, 1996 through December 11, 2006, Plaintiffs allege that defendants operated a cartel, the purpose of which was to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices of TFT-LCDs. Plaintiff specifically alleges that defendants:
- participated in meetings and conversations, including through various trade associations and committees, to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD Products in the United States;
- agreed during these meetings and conversations to charge prices at specified levels and otherwise to increase and maintain prices of TFT-LCD Products sold in the United States;
- issued price announcements and quotations in accordance with the agreements reached; and
- sold TFT-LCD Products to various customers in the United States at non-competitive prices.
Read the First Amended Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint.
Case Status
On March 3, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston denied defendants' motions to dismiss direct purchaser plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court found that the plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaints "more than adequately allege the involvement of each defendant and put defendants on notice of the claims against them." Read a copy of the Court's order.
Class Certified
On March 28, 2010, the Court certified the following classes for purposes of litigation and trial:
- All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006, directly purchased a TFT-LCD panel from any defendant or any subsidiary thereof, or any named affiliate or any named co-conspirator. Specifically excluded from the Class are defendants; the officers, directors, or employees of any defendant; the parent companies and subsidiaries of any defendant; the legal representatives and heirs or assigns of any defendant; and the named affiliates and co-conspirators. Also excluded are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
- All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006, directly purchased a television, computer monitor, or notebook computer containing a TFT-LCD panel, from any defendant or any subsidiary thereof, or any named affiliate or any named co-conspirator. Specifically excluded from the Class are defendants; the officers, directors, or employees of any defendant; the parent companies and subsidiaries of any defendant; the legal representatives and heirs or assigns of any defendant; and the named affiliates and co-conspirators. Also excluded are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
Read the Court's class certification order.
The Court also certified a class of indirect purchasers.
On June 14, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant's petition for permission to appeal the District Court's March 28, 2010 Order granting class action certification. Read the June 14, 2010 Order.
Contact Lieff Cabraser
Federal and state antitrust laws are designed to protect the economy and to promote competition among businesses by prohibiting price-fixing and other forms of anticompetitive conduct. Individuals, businesses, public agencies and other entities that have purchased TFT LCDs or products incorporating TFT LCDs are welcome to contact a Lieff Cabraser attorney, without charge or obligation, for further information on the litigation.
Learning of your experience in purchasing these products will assist us in prosecuting the litigation. We will review your claim without charge or obligation.
Case Status
Organization of the Case
In April 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending cases consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. United States District Judge Susan Illston was assigned to preside over the cases.
In July 2007, Judge Illston issued Pretrial Order No. 1, set an agenda for the first case management conference, ordered the cases organized in an efficient manner and reminded the parties to preserve evidence.
In July, 2007, Judge Illston appointed interim lead counsel in the class action litigation. The Court appointed Lieff Cabraser partner Richard M. Heimann and Bruce L. Simon of Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw and Penny, LLP, as the direct purchaser Co Lead Counsel. (The Court also appointed Francis O. Scarpulla of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, and Joseph M. Alioto of the Alioto Law Firm as Interim Lead Counsel for indirect purchasers.). Interim Lead Counsel share the responsibility for supervising discovery, trial, settlement, and post-trial proceedings on behalf of plaintiffs.
Department of Justice Moves to Intervene
Also in July, 2007, the United States Government, through the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, moved to intervene in the case and to stay most discovery. The Department of Justice argued that a Grand Jury is currently sitting in San Francisco and is investigating potential price-fixing and other illegal pricing activity by manufacturers and sellers of TFT LCDs.
The Government asked the Court to prevent the plaintiffs from having access for at least a year to any documents the defendants produced to the Grand Jury.
The plaintiffs opposed the Department of Justice's motion. After hearing oral argument in September, 2007, and ordering the Department of Justice to file a further statement under seal (meaning that only the judge could read it because of its secret contents), Judge Illston granted in part the United States' motion to stay discovery. The plaintiffs would not have access to any documents the defendants produced to the Grand Jury at least until May 2008.
In May 2008, the plaintiffs persuaded the Department of Justice to agree to a modified stay that would permit the plaintiffs to have immediate access to most case documents, other than documents provided to the Grand Jury pursuant to the government's investigation.
Court Denies Motions To Dismiss
In August, 2008, Judge Illston denied in large part defendants’ motions
to dismiss the action. Defendants argued that the complaint did not
present any evidence that there was an actual agreement among the
defendants to engage in a price-fixing conspiracy as required under
the U.S. Supreme Court's Twombly decision.
The Court rejected the argument, and found that the complaint met
the pleading standard applicable under Twombly by
alleging, among other allegations, "complex and unusual pricing practices
by defendants which cannot be explained by the forces of supply and
demand." The Court also found the plaintiffs' allegations that the
conspiracy raised the prices of products containing the LCD panels,
not just the LCD panels themselves, were sufficient.
In the few instances where the complaints did not meet the applicable
legal standard, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend. The court's
order went on to require the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to allege additional
facts regarding the role of certain defendants' in the conspiracy. Discovery
in the case is underway. The Court has scheduled that the issue of class certification
for resolution in the first half of 2009.
In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.
On March 3, 2009, Judge Illston denied defendants' motions to dismiss direct purchaser plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court found that the plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaints "more than adequately allege the involvement of each defendant and put defendants on notice of the claims against them."
Among other things, the defendants had contended that the complaints lumped them together without differentiating between corporate entities in their "general allegations" in the case. To the contrary, the Court found the amended complaint included detail about "numerous illicit conspiratorial communications between and among defendants," as well as the facts of guilty pleas entered by several defendants for fixing prices of TFT-LCD. Further, "[t]he complaints allege that group or 'crystal' meetings were attended by employees at three general levels of defendants' corporations, and contains details about the structure and content of these meetings, as well as the types of employees who attended the meetings." Read a copy of the Court's Order.
Plaintiffs Seek Discovery From Amnesty Applicant
On April 17, 2009, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs asked the Court to compel the LCD manufacturer that entered into a conditional leniency agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to disclose its identity and provide the cooperation it owes Plaintiffs as required by the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, P.L. 108-237 ("ACPERA"). ACPERA requires the company receiving leniency, also referred to as "the amnesty applicant," to provide to civil plaintiffs specified cooperation upon entry into the agreement. Failure to provide the specified cooperation -- or to make a statement that it will not cooperate -- forfeits the relief from civil liability ACPERA offers. To date, the Plaintiffs have not been provided with the cooperation ACPERA requires, nor have they been told the defendant will not seek the reduced penalties. Read Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance with ACPERA.
U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Case Update
In November, 2008, the Department of Justice filed formal charges in U.S. District Court against LG Display Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd, for violations of the Sherman Act. The three leading electronics manufacturers have agreed to plead guilty and will pay a total of $585 million in criminal fines for their roles in conspiracies to fix prices in the sale of LCD panels. LG will pay $400 million, the second highest criminal fine ever imposed by the Department's Antitrust Division.
In January, 2009, the Department of Justice announced that executives from LG Display Co. Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and serve jail time in the United States for participating in the global conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of TFT-LCD panels. Under the plea agreements, which must be approved by the court, all four executives have agreed to serve a term of imprisonment, pay a criminal fine and assist the government in its ongoing investigation.
In April 2009, the court approved the plea agreements for several defendants in the case, including Chieng-Hon "Frank" Lin (CPT) - 270 days prison; $50k fine Chih-Chun Liu (CPT)- 210 days prison; $30k fine Hsueh-Lung "Brian" Lee (CPT) - 180 days prison; $20k fine Chang Suk Chung (LG) - 7 months prison; $25k fine. In the Hitachi case, the change of plea hearing and expedited sentencing for price fixing are scheduled for May 1, 2009.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a sixty-plus
attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville.
We represent businesses, governments and individuals as plaintiffs in class
and group actions as well as in individual lawsuits in cases involving
substantial losses. Since 2003, The National Law Journal has annually
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the
nation.
Lieff Cabraser has played a prominent role in federal
litigation under the Sherman Act on behalf of businesses in numerous markets
including computer components, prescription drugs, polypropylene carpets,
compact discs, credit cards, linerboard, carbon fiber, plastic laminates,
flat glass, industrial pigments and vitamins. We have also successfully
litigated antitrust claims against Microsoft Corporation for monopolistic
practices, and achieved record recoveries against El Paso Gas Co. and wholesale
electric companies for allegedly manipulating the price of energy in California. Learn
more about our firm.
Notice
This website is sponsored by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, a national plaintiffs' law firm.
Notice: Lieff Cabraser attorneys provide legal advice and practice law for clients in
federal courts throughout the United States and in state courts where we are
licensed to practice. Please read our disclaimer.
Copyright © 2010 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.
No persons pictured on this website are clients of Lieff Cabraser.