TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Class Action

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is the Court-appointed Interim Co-Lead class counsel in a 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.

Proposed Class

Plaintiff seeks to serve as the representative of the following class of businesses and individuals that purchased TFT-LCD products directly from manufacturers and other members of the alleged cartel:

All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1996 and December 11, 2006, directly purchased a TFT-LCD Product in the United States from any defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator. Excluded from the Class are defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action.

The Court has made no determination of the merits of plaintiff’s allegations or whether the case is appropriate to proceed as a class action. Read a pdf copy of the Direct Purchaser Consolidated Complaint, filed November 5, 2007.

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

On April 17, 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.

On July 3, 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, reminded the parties to preserve evidence, and suggested she would appoint U.S. District Judge Fern Smith (retired) as a Special Master.

On July 13, 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.

On July 26, 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 on September 19, 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 do not have access to any documents the defendants produced to the Grand Jury at least until May 2008.

At that time, the Court will ask the Department of Justice if its criminal investigation requires the defendants to continue not to provide documents to the plaintiffs. The Court did, however, allow the plaintiffs to have access to the defendants' monthly, quarterly, and yearly statistical data concerning sales or purchases of LCD products, identification of the types of products purchased or sold by the defendants, and identification of the sales, marketing, or distribution channels used by the defendants. Plaintiffs are also allowed to seek the identities of persons in position of management or control of a company's LCD operations.

The Court also established a schedule for the plaintiffs to file consolidated amended complaints, and for the defendants to respond to them. The schedule is:

November 5, 2007	Last day for direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs to file consolidated amended complaints.
January 4, 2008	Last day for direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs to complete service of consolidated amended complaints on all defendants.
February 19, 2008	Last day for served defendants to respond to consolidated amended complaints in the direct and indirect purchaser actions.
March 20, 2008	Last day for direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs to responses to motions to dismiss.
April 3, 2008	Last day for served defendants to file replies in support of motions to dismiss.
April 30, 2008	2:00 p.m. hearing on any motions to dismiss.