Washington v. AU Optronics, No. 10-2-29164-4 (Super. Ct., King Cty., 2010)
Plaintiff state filed an antitrust action against several major technology companies for illegally fixing prices for liquid crystal display (“LCD”) screens used in computers, televisions, and cell phones. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered from 1998 to 2006 by Washington and other public purchasers that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties on behalf of the state and as parens patriae for state consumers.
After decisions declining to allow the defendants to remove the cases to federal court under CAFA, and affirming the state’s jurisdiction over foreign corporations, the state reached settlements with the defendants totalling $63 million. Defendants also agreed to future monitoring and to implementing antitrust compliance programs.
Missouri v. AU Optronics Corp., (N.D. Cal. pending transfer to MDL 1827, 2010)
Following guilty pleas to criminal price-fixing by several LCD manufacturers, and a conviction after trial of another, plaintiff states filed suit against LCD manufacturers, alleging that top executives of several companies held numerous secret meetings from at least 1999 through at least 2006 for the purpose of exchanging information and setting prices on LCD panels. According to the complaint, companies such as Dell, Apple, and Hewlett Packard were among those targeted by the manufacturers’ price-fixing scheme. According to the lawsuit, the illegal overcharges were ultimately borne by state consumers and state government purchasers. The suit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and state antitrust statutes. The first settlement covered Chimei Innolux, Chimei Optoelectronics, Hannstar, Hitachi, Samsung, and Sharp and their subsidiaries. The second settlement, for $543.5 million, was with AU Optronics, Toshiba and LG Display and subsidiaries.
In the Matter of A Plus Driving School and Peter Schmirler, No. 10-C-04 (Wis. Dept. of Ag. Trade and Cons. Prot. 2010)
The Attorney General’s office became involved in this case after a confidential tip that Mr. Schmirler had attempted to fix prices with his rivals. After an investigation by the Division of Criminal Investigation, the case was brought as an administrative action before the Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection. The parties reached an agreement, embodied in a Special Order that requires Schmirler and A-Plus to refrain from unfair trade practices, including attempts to fix prices, allocate territory or threaten rivals with predatory pricing for five years.
New York v. AU Optronics
Plaintiff state filed an antitrust action against several major technology companies for
illegally fixing prices for liquid crystal display (“LCD”) screens used in computers, televisions, and cell phones. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered from 1996 to 2006 by New
York State and other public purchasers – local governments, schools, hospitals,
and colleges, among others – that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties. Consolidated with other litigation in an MDL in the Northern District of California. See Missouri v. AU Optronics
Florida v. AU Optronics
Plaintiff state filed suit against the world’s largest manufacturers of thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display panels, or “TFT-LCD panels,” alleging the companies conspired
to fix the prices of their products. The civil lawsuit, filed in federal district court in California, alleges that the defendants conspired to prevent competition and to increase prices for TFT-LCD panels, the most common form of LCD panels used in popular electronic devices such as desktop monitors, laptop screens, and flat panel televisions.
The state alleges that the defendants organized the conspiracy at the highest level of their organizations in various secret meetings and telephone conversations over a period of years. The United States Department of Justice has indicted a number of the defendants and their employees in the same federal court, resulting in more than $890 million in criminal fines. The lawsuit also alleges fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy. claims the companies violated the Florida Antitrust Act, the Sherman Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeks injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, civil penalties and costs.
People v. Tempur-Pedic, No. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Cty. Mar. 29, 2010)
State filed suit against Tempur-Pedic, a mattress manufacturer, alleging resale price maintenance. The state did not sue under its antitrust statute, but rather under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 369(a). The State alleged that Tempur-Pedic’s Retail Partner Agreement restrained discounting in a variety of ways. the trial court held that the state’s General Business law did not make resale price maintenance illegal, but only made contractual provisions embodying resale price maintenance uneforceable.
U.S. and Idaho v. Idaho Orthopaedic Society, No. 10-268 (D. Idaho, May 28, 2010)
Plaintiffs alleged that orthopedic doctors gained more favorable fees and contractual terms by agreeing to coordinate their actions, including denying medical care to injured workers covered by the State Insurance Fund and patients covered by Blue Cross. The settlement prevents the orthopedists from agreeing with their competitors on fees and contract terms. The settlement also prohibits the settling orthopedists from collectively denying medical care to patients, refusing to deal with any payor, or threatening to terminate any contract with a payor.
U.S., Illinois, Colorado and Indiana v. AMC Entertaininment Holdings, No. 10-cv00846 (D.D.C. 2010)
AMC, a movie theater chain operates 304 U.S. theaters housing 4,574 screens, most
of which are located in megaplexes operates Kerasotes ShowPlace Theatres operates 96 movie theaters with 973 screens in the United States, mostly in the Midwest. USDOJ and the plaintiff states challenged the acquisition of Kerasotes by AMC on the grounds that it would reduce competition in markets in Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. To resolve the case, AMC agreed to divest eight theaters–four in Illinois, two in Colorado and two in Indiana.
Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Kumar, No. 0903806CV, (Or. Cir. Ct., Klamath Cty. Feb. 5, 2010)
Defendants owned a retail market that sells fuel. State alleged that the defendants used threats and intimidation to seek to fix the price of gas at Ray’s Market and Klamath River Gas, a nearby station. State also alleged violations of its consumer protection act because the advertised price of gas was less than what was charged at the pump. Defendants were enjoined from future violations and paid $5,000, which the state agreed to accept in lieu of the $25,000 award.
Oregon ex rel. Myers v. Monem, No. 07c17510 (Ore. Cir. Cty, Marion Cty. 2007)
Defendant Monem was employed by state Dept. of Corrections as purchaser of food. Monem accepted bribes from several food wholesalers to purchase food for the prison system. USDOJ sought civil forfeiture of some of defendants’ assets. State brought state RICO, bribery and antitrust claims. Judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $4,556,103 and property held by corporations they had set up was sold in partial judgment on that claim.
