TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

Last updated

TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameTFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 07-md-01827.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Susan Yvonne Illston

The TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation [1] was a United States class-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. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions, laptop and computer monitors, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, semiconductors and other devices; [4] in 2006, the worldwide TFT-LCD panels market generated approximately $70 billion in revenue, at least $23.5 billion of which in the U.S. [5]

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. [6]

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. [7] Reports alleged an international 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. [8] The cartel members held monthly multilateral meetings, called "Crystal Meetings", where executives exchanged production, shipping, supply and demand information. In later stages, lower-level employees replaced top-level employees at the meetings which were moved from hotel rooms to public restaurants. An investigation by the 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". [9] [8]

Litigation

Samsung was granted immunity by the DOJ, in exchange for cooperation and concrete evidence of LCD price-fixing. [10]

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.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, 2011 [6]

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, [11] Costco Wholesale Corporation, Good Guys, Kmart, Motorola Mobility, Newegg, Sears, and Target Corporation. [12] U.S. States and Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs (i.e. those who purchased TFT-LCD integrated products, but not the LCDs as separate products) sought an order certifying (a) one 50-state Rule 23(b)(2)2 injunctive relief class under Section 16 of the 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. [13]

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. [14]

Fines and penalties

Fines imposed by US, EU and Koran authorities
ConspiratorDepartment of Justice FinesEuropean Competition Commission FinesKorean FTC Fines
AUO $500 million [15] €116.8 million [16] ₩ 28.53 billion [17]
LG $400 million [18] €215 million [19] ₩ 65.5 billion [17]
Chi Mei $220 million [20] €300 million [8] ₩1.55 billion [21]
Sharp $120 million [18] [ citation needed ][ citation needed ]
Chunghwa $65 million [18] €9.02 million [8] ₩290 million [21]
Hitachi $31 million [22]
Toshiba $30 million
Hannstar $30 million [22] €8.1 million [8] ₩870 million [21]
Epson $26 million [22]
Samsung [ citation needed ]Granted immunity₩97.29 billion [21]

From October 2008 through January 2009, three leading flat-screen manufacturers pleaded guilty to participating in the conspiracy and were fined: [23]

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. [14]

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." [25] [26] [27]

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. [8]

In July 2012, AU Optronics was fined $500 million, and two of AUO's executives were sentenced to prison time and a $200,000 criminal fine. [28]

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. [29]

Civil class litigation outcome

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. [6] Some of the money from the settlement was to be made available to consumers in 24 states. In the U.S. and other countries, private class action suits were filed seeking damages for companies that purchased flat-panel screens (direct purchasers/victims), and for consumers who bought TFT-LCD integrated products (indirect purchasers/victims).

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquid-crystal display</span> Display that uses the light-modulating properties of liquid crystals

A liquid-crystal display (LCD) is a flat-panel display or other electronically modulated optical device that uses the light-modulating properties of liquid crystals combined with polarizers. Liquid crystals do not emit light directly but instead use a backlight or reflector to produce images in color or monochrome. LCDs are available to display arbitrary images or fixed images with low information content, which can be displayed or hidden: preset words, digits, and seven-segment displays are all examples of devices with these displays. They use the same basic technology, except that arbitrary images are made from a matrix of small pixels, while other displays have larger elements. LCDs can either be normally on (positive) or off (negative), depending on the polarizer arrangement. For example, a character positive LCD with a backlight will have black lettering on a background that is the color of the backlight, and a character negative LCD will have a black background with the letters being of the same color as the backlight. Optical filters are added to white on blue LCDs to give them their characteristic appearance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Price fixing</span> Agreement over prices between participants on the same side in a market

Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plasma display</span> Type of flat panel display

A plasma display panel (PDP) is a type of flat panel display that uses small cells containing plasma: ionized gas that responds to electric fields. Plasma televisions were the first large flat panel displays to be released to the public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LCD television</span> Television set with liquid-crystal display

Liquid-crystal-display televisions are television sets that use liquid-crystal displays to produce images. They are by far the most widely produced and sold television display type. LCD TVs are thin and light, but have some disadvantages compared to other display types such as high power consumption, poorer contrast ratio, and inferior color gamut.

A thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display is a variant of a liquid-crystal display that uses thin-film-transistor technology to improve image qualities such as addressability and contrast. A TFT LCD is an active matrix LCD, in contrast to passive matrix LCDs or simple, direct-driven LCDs with a few segments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AUO Corporation</span>

AUO Corporation is a Taiwanese company that specialises in optoelectronic solutions. It was formed in September 2001 by the merger of Acer Display Technology, Inc. and Unipac Optoelectronics Corporation. AUO offers display panel products and solutions, and in recent years expanded its business to smart retail, smart transportation, general health, solar energy, circular economy and smart manufacturing service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DRAM price fixing scandal</span> 2002-2018 Court cases in US & Europe

In 2002, the United States Department of Justice, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, began a probe into the activities of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) manufacturers in response to claims by US computer makers, including Dell and Gateway, that inflated DRAM pricing was causing lost profits and hindering their effectiveness in the marketplace.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chi Mei Corporation</span>

CHIMEI Corporation is a Taiwan-based performance materials company. It has long been known as the world’s largest vendor of ABS resins. It has factories in Tainan, Zhenjiang and Zhangzhou. It also produces advanced polymer materials, synthetic rubbers, and specialty chemicals.

LG Display is one of the world's largest manufacturers and supplier of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, OLEDs and flexible displays. LG Display is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, and currently operates nine fabrication facilities and seven back-end assembly facilities in Korea, China, Poland and Mexico.

The lysine price-fixing conspiracy was an organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, including American company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Japanese companies Ajinomoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo, and Korean companies Sewon America Inc. and Cheil Jedang Ltd. A criminal investigation resulted in fines and three-year prison sentences for three executives of ADM who colluded with the other companies to fix prices. The foreign companies settled with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division in September through December 1996. Each firm and four executives from the Asian firms pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain to aid in further investigation against ADM. The cartel had been able to raise lysine prices 70% within their first nine months of cooperation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HannStar Display Corporation</span>

HannStar Display Corporation is a Taiwan-based technology company, primarily involved in the research and production of monitors, notebook displays, and televisions.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.

The De Beers diamonds antitrust class action sought to end an alleged 60-year conspiracy to fix the price of rough diamonds in the U.S. by the De Beers group of companies. The litigation includes several cases including Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., No. CGC-04-432954, which commenced on July 24, 2004, and Sullivan v. DB Investments, No. 04-cv-02819, and earlier related cases that commenced in 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sharp Corporation</span> Japanese electronics company

Sharp Corporation is a Japanese electronics company. It is headquartered in Sakai, Osaka and was founded by Tokuji Hayakawa in 1912 in Honjo, Tokyo and established as the Hayakawa Metal Works Institute in Abeno, Osaka in 1924. Since 2016, it is majority owned by Taiwan-based manufacturer Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., better known as Foxconn.

IPS is a screen technology for liquid-crystal displays (LCDs). In IPS, a layer of liquid crystals is sandwiched between two glass surfaces. The liquid crystal molecules are aligned parallel to those surfaces in predetermined directions (in-plane). The molecules are reoriented by an applied electric field, whilst remaining essentially parallel to the surfaces to produce an image. It was designed to solve the strong viewing angle dependence and low-quality color reproduction of the twisted nematic field effect (TN) matrix LCDs prevalent in the late 1980s.

<i>United States v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.</i>

United States v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. was a criminal case filed on October 15, 1996 in which the United States alleged that Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) and other corporations and individuals engaged in a conspiracy to fix and maintain prices of lysine and citric acid and to restrain or eliminate competing suppliers of these additives in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. ADM entered into a plea agreement in which ADM pleaded guilty to both antitrust counts and agreed to pay a combined fine of $100 million. This is equivalent to $199.70 million in present-day terms and was at the time the largest antitrust fine ever imposed.

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.

Economic consulting is the practice of providing advanced economic, financial, and statistical analysis for use in a litigation environment. Law firms, state institutions, and other organizations may rely on economic consultants to produce research, analyses, reports, and testimony to be used in trial.

References

  1. ↑ "07-1827 – TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation – party names". govinfo. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  2. ↑ "In re Tft-Lcd (flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation – COURT ORDER GRANTING – Filed March 28 2010". DocketBird. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  3. ↑ "Order Denying Defendants' Joint Motion For Summary Judgment Against Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs In 14 States – In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig". Casetext. December 7, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  4. ↑ Joseph A. Castellano (2005). Liquid Gold: The Story of Liquid Crystal Displays and the Creation of an Industry. World Scientific. ISBN   978-981-256-584-6.
  5. 1 2 Frieden, Terry (November 12, 2008). "LCD makers Sharp, LG and Chunghwa plead guilty: Price fixing – Nov. 12, 2008". money.cnn.com. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  6. 1 2 3 Freifeld, Karen (December 27, 2011). "LCD makers settle price-fixing case for $553 million". U.S. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  7. ↑ "In IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION – Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Indirect-purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification" (PDF). Applied Antitrust Law. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Antitrust: Commission fines six LCD panel producers €648 million for price fixing cartel". European Commission. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  9. ↑ AFP (December 8, 2010). "EU slaps 649 million euro fine on Asian flat-screen cartel" . The Independent. Archived from the original on May 26, 2022. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  10. ↑ Savage, Lynn (January 1, 2011). "Taiwanese and South Korean LCD Cartel Pressed Hard by Fines". Photonics Spectra. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  11. ↑ 13-17408 Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hannstar Display Corporation, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on YouTube, December 11, 2015
  12. ↑ "Expert Report of B. Douglas Bernheim, PhD concerning Target Corp., et al". DocketBird. December 15, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  13. ↑ "TFT-LCD Global Price Fixing Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit". Lieff Cabraser . August 12, 2015. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  14. 1 2 Lee, Jung-Ah (October 30, 2011). "Seoul Fines Six LCD Manufacturers in Price-Fixing Case". WSJ. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  15. ↑ "AU Optronics Fined $500 Million in U.S. Price-Fixing Case". The New York Times. September 20, 2012. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  16. ↑ chcom (June 24, 2013). "AU Optronics". Companies History – The biggest companies in the world. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  17. 1 2 Kirk, Jeremy (October 31, 2011). "South Korea Fines Flat-panel LCD Display Makers". PCWorld. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  18. 1 2 3 "LG, Sharp, Chunghwa Agree to Plead Guilty, Pay Total of $585 Million in Fines for Participating in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracies". U.S. Department of Justice. March 31, 2008. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  19. ↑ Reisinger, Don (December 8, 2010). "EU fines LCD makers for 'price fixing cartel'". CNET. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  20. ↑ Happich, Julien. Taiwan LCD producer pleads guilty for role in price-fixing conspiracy, EE Times , December 10, 2009
  21. 1 2 3 4 "Expert Report Of Mohan Rao, Ph.d. In re Tft-Lcd (flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation". DocketBird. November 2012. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  22. 1 2 3 Superior Court Of California  – Flrst Amended Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief  – Demand For Jury Trial, March 2011. www.ca.gov
  23. ↑ "LG Display, Sharp and Chunghwa plead guilty to price-fixing". The New York Times. October 13, 2008. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  24. 1 2 "Four Executives Agree to Plead Guilty in Global Lcd Price-Fixing Conspiracy". FBI. June 29, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  25. ↑ "Four Executives Agree to Plead Guilty in Global LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy (2009-01-15)". U.S. Department of Justice. January 15, 2009. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  26. ↑ "Supreme Court Of The United States – Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari" (PDF). Applied Antitrust Law. March 16, 2015. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  27. ↑ "Largest Taiwanese LCD Producer, Houston-Based Subsidiary and Six Executives Indicted for Participating in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy". Department of Justice. June 10, 2010. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
  28. ↑ AU Optronics Fined $500M, Execs Jailed For LCD Price-Fixing, Law360. September 20, 2012
  29. ↑ Gullo, Karen (July 11, 2012). "AUO, LG Display, Toshiba Will Settle LCD Case, Lawyer Say". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 14, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.