tft lcd class action price

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".

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,

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.

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.

If you would like to know the status of your claim, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886.

Read this please. People other than these states are they eligible or no ? Under the terms of the LCD price-fixing settlement, the companies will pay a combined $1.1 billion to consumers in 24 states and Washington, D.C. that purchased a laptop, computer monitor or television with a flat-panel LCD display between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006 manufactured by one of these companies.

The LCD class action settlement only covers consumers who purchased INDIRECTLY from these companies. “Indirectly” means that you purchased an LCD panel in a television, monitor or notebook computer from someone other than the manufacturer of that panel (such as at Best Buy, Amazon.com, etc.). The states covered under the LCD class action settlement include:

Topclassactions we are thankful to you providing available settlements. Please DONT make comments like people are getting hundreds of dollars in checks. Settlement admin and companies are not throwing money around. Violaters are paying and DONT forget lawyers involved in this settlement will get 350 millions dollars in FEES.. If people did get checks because they filed valid claims.Secondly you never help hundreds of people who never get anything from Garden City Group claim administartors from Dublin ohio and Seattle Washington because they have blocked hundreds of people names address and phones on BLOCKED list.They throw many thousands claims in Garbage and never even answer weather we have valid claims. GARDEN CITY GROUP settlement administrators have been violating human rights for years and nothing has been done about. Most people live work hard in our country and pay taxes so no reason to get settlements awards when companies are negligible. Please dont act like you are sending checks to people.

UPDATE 3: On Oct. 27, 2014, our readers began reporting that they finally from the LCD panel class action settlement. Some readers have received checks worth hundreds of dollars. Let us know how much money YOU received in the comments section below. Congratulations!

UPDATE 10/23/14: A federal judge reportedly gave authorization to distribute the LCD class action settlement funds at a hearing on Oct. 17. 2014, and the checks are likely to be distributed the last week in October. Read more.

On July 24, 2014, you were sent an email advising you that all appeals in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement had been dismissed and that the final steps necessary to disburse recoveries to Claimants were proceeding. This email is to provide you with an update on the status of these claim processing activities and the anticipated schedule for distributing checks. You will not receive any further email updates on the status of these procedures unless there is some significant unforeseen delay.

We have now completed the claim audit/verification process. Class Counsel and the Attorneys General submitted a motion seeking approval from the Court to disburse payments to Claimants. The Court is currently scheduled to consider the motion on October 17, 2014. After Court approval is granted, distribution checks will be mailed. It is anticipated that this will occur within four weeks of Court Approval.

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim. Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, please let us know if your address changes.

You previously filed a claim to share in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement. As you may be aware, distribution of the settlement proceeds to Claimants had been delayed because of appeals from the Court’s approval of the settlements. All appeals have now been dismissed. Accordingly, we now can move forward with concluding the procedures necessary to disburse recoveries to Claimants. This email is to provide you with an update on the status of these claim processing activities.

We are well along in the claim audit/verification process and currently expect that these activities will be completed by the end of August 2014. It is expected that Class Counsel will seek approval from the Court to disburse payment to Claimants soon thereafter. Payments will be sent to Claimants within two weeks of Court approval.

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim. Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclaims.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, please let us know if your address changes.

UPDATE: Distribution of funds from the LCD class action settlement has been delayed by appeals. The Settlement Administrator is estimating that the appeals will not be resolved until 2015 to 2018. More info: http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/23583-update-lcd-class-action-settlement-money-delayed-appeals/

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement. This email is to provide an update on the court proceedings in this case which directly affect when payments will be disbursed under the Settlement.

Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. We are continuing to review claims and we will contact you if your claim is deficient or additional information is needed. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions regarding the Court proceedings, please feel free to email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, if you change addresses, please let us know.

If you click on the link above…LCD.com, it states that all 10 settlements have final approval with the court. There are appeals pending & that no payments will be made to class members until all appeals are resolved. This was updated 9/27/13.

Sent in all required paperwork (plenty of time) -received a letter dated Feb. 21, 2013 – stating “All proof you submitted to support your claim was accepted.” – Contacted LCD to check on the status – they told me “you failed to send in your paperwork!” I’m a bit upset over this!

I have a indirect claim that I filed a long time ago. I even received a letter wanting to clarify the number of screens I purchased. Now today I get an LCD FLAT PANEL CONSUMER CLAIM FORM….did anybody else receive the same thing? Why would they send this out now?

According to the Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel filed a Motion for distribution of the Settlement Fund. A hearing is scheduled on July 12, 2013. When the Court grants the distribution motion, checks will be mailed to eligible Class Members.

(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co, Sharp Corp and five other makers of liquid crystal displays agreed to pay more than $553 million to settle consumer and state regulatory claims that they conspired to fix prices for LCD panels in televisions, notebook computers and monitors.A worker prepares a display of Sharp flat panel televisions for the 2009 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 7, 2009. REUTERS/Steve Marcus

The settlement is the latest arising from lawsuits alleging the creation of an international cartel designed to illegally inflate prices and stifle competition in LCD panels between 1999 and 2006, affecting billions of dollars of U.S. commerce.

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. Many companies and executives have since pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations and paid more than $890 million in fines.

The latest payout includes $538.6 million to resolve claims by “indirect” purchasers that bought televisions and computers with thin film transistor LCDs, as well as claims by eight states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Other defendants have yet to settle, including Taiwan-based AU Optronics Corp, one of the largest LCD panel manufacturers; South Korea’s LG Display Co and Toshiba Corp.

The accord follows a settlement this month by eight companies, including Samsung and Sharp, to pay $388 million to settle litigation by direct purchasers of the LCD panels.

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.

A federal judge in California recently approved disbursement of funds in a final settlement in years-long litigation regarding antitrust violation claims against three manufacturers of LCD screens. The claims were brought against AUO, LG, and Toshiba, alleging that they had engaged in schemes to fix the prices of the film transistor-liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) over a period of several years beginning as early as 1999. The manufacturers were accused of conspiring to set the prices for the TFT-LCD screens at artificially high values. This was done over a period of at least eight years. The litigation involved two main settlement classes; one for direct purchasers and one for indirect purchasers of the technology. Within the direct purchasers class, two subclasses were certified; one for purchasers of the panels themselves and another for purchasers of finished products that included the screens, such as televisions, notebooks, and monitors. Two indirect purchaser subclasses were also certified. The first of those was a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief and the second consisted of statewide classes seeking monetary relief. The statewide classes were certified for Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

As part of the relief for the injunctive class, the manufacturers will establish antitrust compliance programs. The only defendant to proceed to trial was Toshiba, and after six weeks of trial in 2012, a unanimous jury awarded $17 million to the panel class of direct purchasers and $70 million to the finished product class. Following the trial, Toshiba agreed to pay $30 million in exchange for dismissal with prejudice and a release of the claims against them. Overall, the direct purchasers received more than $473 million in settlements as the result of all claims against all defendants. $258.63 million of that money has been directed to go to class members, with $58.18 million being reserved for future unanticipated contingencies. Approximately $156 million went to pay attorney fees and other administrative costs. Now that the disbursement of the funds has been approved, checks will begin going out to class members and administrators.

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.

In May 2017, the State of Illinois reached a tentative settlement agreement with the last remaining Defendant in the last remaining proceeding in the multidistrict TFT-LCD price-fixing antitrust litigation. This capped roughly ten years of Compass Lexecon involvement, from the class certification phase of the case through this final settlement. Professor Dennis Carlton testified in three trials, and a number of arbitration hearings and depositions. Professor Janusz Ordover testified on behalf of the Joint Defense Group on class certification issues. In addition, Professor Bobby Willig testified on behalf of Sharp Corporation, and Professor Dan Rubinfeld testified on behalf of Samsung.

In the direct-purchasers class litigation, Professor Carlton testified for Defendant Toshiba at trial in 2012. While Plaintiffs and their economic experts argued for overcharges of nearly $900 million – and thus damages of more than $2.5 billion after trebling – the jury determined that overcharges were only $87 million. Polling of jurors revealed that Carlton’s testimony was “very influential in the deliberations.”

In the Best Buy LCD price fixing litigation, Carlton testified for Defendants Toshiba and Hannstar at trial in 2013. Plaintiff Best Buy’s economic expert argued for damages of roughly $900 million post-trebling, based on an overcharge percentage of approximately 20%. The jury found no liability for Toshiba, and, for HannStar, which admitted liability, the jury awarded only direct damages in precisely the amount based on Professor Carlton’s analysis – $7.47 million.

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.

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual residing in or a business headquartered in Washington State that purchased between January 1, 1998 through December 1, 2006 products containing LCD, not for resale, such as a TV, laptop or computer monitor.

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels.

TFT-LCD Flat Panels (thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal-display panels) are the glass display panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors, notebook computers, and handheld devices such as color-screen cell phones and MP3 players.

The Washington State Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any WA resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006, while residing in WA (or businesses headquartered in WA) and for their own use and not for resale. Therefore, if you or your business purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006 while residing in WA, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolution color displays. There settlements total $63 million.

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual residing in or a business headquartered in Illinois that purchased between January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2006 products containing LCD, not for resale, such as a TV, laptop or computer monitor.

​The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels.

TFT-LCD Flat Panels (thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal-display panels) are the glass display panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors, notebook computers, and handheld devices such as color-screen cell phones and MP3 players.

The Illinois Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any Illinois resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006, while residing in Illinois (or businesses headquartered in IL) and for their own use and not for resale. Therefore, if you or your business purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006 while residing in Illinois, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolutio

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual or business that purchased between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007 any Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) or any product containing a CRT, such

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Indirect class action alleges that Chunghwa, LG, Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung and Thomson (the “Defendants”) fixed the prices of CRT from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to individuals and businesses that bought CRT Products. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” As a result of the class action the Defendants agreed to settle for $576,750,000. Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”) are a display technology that was widely used in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in displays. You are eligible to file a claim if you purchased a CRT Monitor, CRT Television or CRT Product anytime from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007 for your own use. The settlements covers “indirect” purchasers of ANY BRAND (except for Sony) of CRT Monitors and Televisions, and only includes businesses or individuals that purchased the product not for resale. You are included even if you do not currently own the product. As long as you did not buy CRT “directly” from a Defendant, your purchase is eligible. The settlements includes any purchases made in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual or business that purchased a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), a CRT television or CRT computer monitor. The settlement covers Direct purchasers

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) DIRECT class action alleges that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRT from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to individuals and businesses that bought CRT Products. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” As a result of the class action the Defendants agreed to settle for $224,000,000. Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”) are a display technology that was widely used in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in displays.

The City of Los Angeles (“City”) has agreed to pay up to $92.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit seeking refunds of taxes collected for telephone services. You are eligible to submit a claim if you paid the Los Angeles Telephone Utility Users Tax (called the “UUT”) at any time from October 19, 2005 to March 15, 2008, and have not already been paid a full refund by the City for such UUT, subject to offset for any refunds the City has already paid you. The tax was typically collected by telephone service providers through charges appearing on landline and mobile telephone bills.

The UUT class action alleges that the City of Los Angeles unlawfully collected a Utility User Tax on telephone bills (personal and business landlines and cellular phones) that were not taxable under the city’s UUT ordinance. The tax which was automatically collected by the telephone companies and included in your bill, accounted for approximately 10% of the bill. As a result of the class action, the city agreed to a $92.5 million settlement to be distributed to eligible claimants. The name of the case is Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC363959. You are eligible to file a claim for a refund if your service address for the landline phone was within city limits and if the billing address of the cellular phone was within city limits. Both business and personal customers are eligible to participate. The class period is from October 19, 2005 to March 15, 2008.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed approval of a previous settlement and returned the case to the District Court on June 30, 2016. Therefore, no claim forms are available at this time, and no claim-filing deadline has been set. If another settlement is reached, no-cost assistance will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claims-filing period. Class members are not required to sign up with any third-party service in order to participate any settlement. For additional information, class members may visit www.paymentcardsettlement.com, the Court-approved website for this case.

If you purchased Wallboard directly from one or more of the below Defendants or their subsidiaries between January 1, 2012 and November 30, 2014, you may be a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Classes certified by the Court. The settlement amount is currently pending, and class counsel is proceeding with their suit against the non-settling defendants. “Wallboard” refers to paper-backed gypsum wallboard and is also known as drywall or plasterboard.

The lawsuit alleges that CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc., USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Inc., Eagle Materials, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC, PABCO Building Products, LLC, and TIN, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) participated in a conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices of Wallboard in violation of federal antitrust laws. The Defendants deny that they violated the antitrust laws and have asserted defenses to the claims in this lawsuit. For the Direct class action, Plaintiffs have entered into two settlement agreements to resolve claims against some Defendants, in exchange for $44.5 million and cooperation from those Defendants, as Plaintiffs continue to pursue the case against the remaining Defendants who have not settled. More specifically, TIN Inc. (“TIN”) has agreed to pay $5.25 million and provide cooperation, in exchange for the release and dismissal of TIN from the lawsuit. Additionally, USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, and USG Corporation’s subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation (collectively, “USG”) have agreed to pay $39.25 million and provide cooperation, in exchange for the release and dismissal of USG from the lawsuit. The settlement funds is being held in an interest bearing account until it is determined whether there will be additional settlements with, or judgments against, the non-settling Defendants. In connection with the TIN and USG settlements, the Court certified identical Settlement Classes composed of all persons or entities that purchased Wallboard in the United States directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries from January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2014.

You may be included in one or more of the Settlements (as a Class Member) if you Directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services from any of the Settling or Non-Settling Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates from January 1, 2001 through September 14, 2012 in the U.S., or outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from the U.S.

The Optical Disk Drive (“ODD”) class action alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of ODD Products, resulting in overcharges to consumers who directly bought ODDs and Products containing ODDs directly from the defendants between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2010. The ODD defendants are Sony, NEC, LG, Hitachi, Samsung, Toshiba, Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., BenQ, TEAC, Quanta and Panasonic. ODD includes CD drives, DVD drives, and Blu-ray drives as well as products that contain an ODD, such as a computer and laptop.

The Optical Disk Drive (“ODD”) class action alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of ODD Products, resulting in overcharges to consumers who directly bought ODDs and Products containing ODDs directly from the defendants between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2010. The ODD defendants are Sony, NEC, LG, Hitachi, Samsung, Toshiba, Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., BenQ, TEAC, Quanta and Panasonic. ODD includes CD drives, DVD drives, and Blu-ray drives as well as products that contain an ODD, such as a computer and laptop.

You are a Class Member and could get benefits from the $297 million settlement, if you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup, and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost component. The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive benefits.

The class action alleges that US Foods (“USF”), between 1998 and 2005, improperly inflated the purported “cost” of goods it sold to its customers with cost-plus purchasing arrangements. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or USF. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement of $297 million. As a result of the settlement, any company who purchased, during the period of 1998 through 2005, products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup (“cost-plus arrangement”), and for which USF used a Value Added Service Provider (“VASP”) transaction to calculate the cost component, is eligible to participate in the class action settlement. The alleged VASPs were (i) Seafood Marketing Specialists, Inc., (ii) Frozen Farms, Inc., (iii) Produce Solutions, Inc., a/k/a Cross Valley Produce, Inc., (iv) Private Labels Distribution, Inc., a/k/a Private Brands Distribution, Inc., (v) Specialty Supply & Marketing, Inc., and (vi) Commodity Management Systems, Inc. Your share of the fund will depend on the number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases used a VASP transaction to calculate the invoice price. The settlement fund will be distributed to Class Members who file claims on a pro rata basis, based on Class Members’ cost-plus/VASP purchase amounts. None of the settlement fund will revert to USF.

The DRAM Indirect class action alleges that the Defendants fixed the price of DRAM causing individuals and businesses to pay more for DRAM and DRAM-containing devices. The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. Individuals and businesses are eligible for the $310 million settlement if they purchased DRAM or a device containing DRAM anywhere in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002, for their own use or for resale.

You are a Class Member and could get benefits from the $297 million settlement, if you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup, and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost component. The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive benefits.

The class action alleges that US Foods (“USF”), between 1998 and 2005, improperly inflated the purported “cost” of goods it sold to its customers with cost-plus purchasing arrangements. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or USF. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement of $297 million. As a result of the settlement, any company who purchased, during the period of 1998 through 2005, products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup (“cost-plus arrangement”), and for which USF used a Value Added Service Provider (“VASP”) transaction to calculate the cost component, is eligible to participate in the class action settlement. The alleged VASPs were (i) Seafood Marketing Specialists, Inc., (ii) Frozen Farms, Inc., (iii) Produce Solutions, Inc., a/k/a Cross Valley Produce, Inc., (iv) Private Labels Distribution, Inc., a/k/a Private Brands Distribution, Inc., (v) Specialty Supply & Marketing, Inc., and (vi) Commodity Management Systems, Inc. Your share of the fund will depend on the number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases used a VASP transaction to calculate the invoice price. The settlement fund will be distributed to Class Members who file claims on a pro rata basis, based on Class Members’ cost-plus/VASP purchase amounts. None of the settlement fund will revert to USF.

You may be entitled to file a claim for the $400 million settlement that was reached in a class action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of thin film transistor‐liquid crystal display (“TFT‐LCD”) panels and certain products containing those panels. Beginning as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing through December 2006, the companies listed below engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT‐LCD panels and certain products containing those panels in violation of federal antitrust laws. In order to recover funds from the TFT-LCD $400 million class action settlement fund, you must file a claim before April 5, 2012.

You may be entitled to file a claim for the $400 million settlement that was reached in a class action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of thin film transistor‐liquid crystal display (“TFT‐LCD”) panels and certain products containing those panels. Beginning as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing through December 2006, the companies listed below engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT‐LCD panels and certain products containing those panels in violation of federal antitrust laws. In order to recover funds from the TFT-LCD $400 million class action settlement fund, you must file a claim before April 5, 2012.Let’s talk!

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.

U.S. states on Thursday announced they have reached settlement agreements with LCD makers LG Display, AU Optronics and Toshiba, who will pay close to US$571 million end the price-fixing case against them.

The U.S. state attorneys general said that the companies conspired to fix, raise and maintain prices of TFT-LCD flat panels, which led to prices being inflated and consumers being overcharged. Consumers in 24 states and the District of Columbia will be refunded overcharges they paid between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2006.

Following court approval of the settlements ,close to $692 million will be available as partial compensation to consumers in the states involved who purchased products containing TFT-LCD panels, said the New York State Attorney General"s office in a statement. Users can visit the LCD class-action lawsuit website for registration and more information on the past settlements.

A class-action case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in California. In earlier settlements made last month, Samsung has agreed to pay $240 million into the settlement fund, Sharp will pay $115.5 million and Chi Mei will pay $110.3 million.

A lawyer representing the class-action status against the display companies, Joseph Alioto, said that consumers will get paid a minimum of $25 for purchases made tied to the settlement. The consumer has to be a resident of a participating state, and purchases could include products such as TV, monitor, or laptop. The states participating are 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.

AU Optronics, in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, said "we have reached an agreement in principle with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs in connection with an antitrust civil class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pending court approval, at which time the company will make further announcement."

The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating companies colluding in TFT-LCD price fixing, and many company executives have been found guilty of colluding to fix prices.