Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: $9.7M settlement of price fixing claims against cathode ray tube manufacturer preliminarily approved, (Jun 15, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The federal district court in San Francisco has granted class certification and preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of over $9.7 million to resolve price fixing claims against Thomson SA, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Technologies Displays Americas LLC, manufacturers of cathode ray tube (CRTs), by a class of direct purchasers of CRTs made by the defendants that were ultimately incorporated into finished products (In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, June 12, 2015, Conti S.).

The proposed settlement requires Thomson and Technologies Displays Americans to pay over $9.7 million into a settlement fund. Additionally, Thomson has agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs with their ongoing claims against other manufacturers. The settlement fund will be used to make distributions to class members in accordance with a plan of allocation approved by the court, pay class counsel attorney’s fees award, and defray notice costs incurred in the administration and distribution of the settlement payments.

The court found that the settlement fell within the range of possible final approval and there was sufficient basis for notifying the class of the proposed settlement and for setting a fairness hearing.

Further, the prerequisites to a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied: (1) hundreds of geographically dispersed class members made joinder of all members impracticable; (2) there were common questions of law and fact that predominated over individual claims; (3) claims or defenses of class plaintiffs were typical of the clams or defenses of the class; (4) the plaintiffs would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and have retained experienced counsel; and (5) a class action was superior to individual suits.

For purposes of the settlement, a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who directly purchased a CRT product in the United States from the defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate, between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, was certified by the court. The class excluded the defendants and related corporate entities, co-conspirators, governmental entities, and any judges assigned to oversee any aspect of the suit.

The notice given to the class settlement was approved and the lead counsel appointed for the class. Finally, the hearing for final approval of the settlement is set for October 23, 2015.

The case is No. CV-07-5944-SC, MDL No. 1917.

Attorneys: Bruce Lee Simon (Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP) and Guido Saveri (Saveri & Saveri, Inc.) for Crago, Inc. Betty Lisa Julian (McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP) for Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics. Cadio R. Zirpoli (Saveri & Saveri, Inc.) for Orion Home Systems, LLC. Bryan L. Clobes (Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP) and Lee Albert (Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP) for Princeton Display Technologies, Inc. Gilmur Roderick Murray (Murray & Howard, LLP) for Southern Office Supply, Inc. Gregory K. Arenson (Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP) for Meijer, Inc. Anthony J. Bolognese (Bolognese & Associates LLC) for Arch Electronics, Inc. Arthur Slezak Gaus (Dillingham Murphy, LLP) for Technologies Displays Americas LLC. Calvin Lee Litsey (Faegre Baker Daniels LLP) for Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., and Thomson SA.

Companies: Crago, Inc.; Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics; Orion Home Systems, LLC; Princeton Display Technologies, Inc.; Southern Office Supply, Inc.; Meijer, Inc.; Arch Electronics, Inc.; Technologies Displays Americas LLC; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews