Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Best Buy's attorney fee award slashed in TFT-LCD price fixing case, (May 13, 2014)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Although judgment was entered in favor of Best Buy following a jury trial against HannStar Display Corp. for its role in a conspiracy to fix the prices of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels (TFT-LCDs), the retailer was entitled to only 20 percent of the requested amount for attorney fees, the federal district court in San Francisco has decided. The court adopted a Special Master's recommendations, awarding Best Buy only $1.75 million (of the requested $8.6 million) in attorney fees and denying a request to recover expert fees or other non-taxable costs (In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, May 12, 2014, Illston, S.).

On September 4, 2013, following a six-week jury trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Best Buy. Best Buy had sought nearly $800 million in damages from the Taiwan-based TFT-LCD panel producer and seller. However, the jury awarded Best Buy only $7.47 million—approximately .9% of its claim. In November 2013, the court issued an amended judgment, awarding approximately $22.4 million after trebling (about 2.8% of the claimed amount). Best Buy ultimately obtained no damages from HannStar, however, due to a settlement offset. Best Buy had received $229 million in settlements from other parties.

Best Buy's requested attorney fee award was reduced by approximately 80 percent because, as the Special Master noted, the “lengthy litigation and six-week trial against HannStar ultimately achieved nothing.” The retailer “utterly failed to prove significant damages against HannStar despite its guilty plea to liability, and ended up with no recovery at all after the settlement offset,” according to the Special Master. “Quite simply, this is the same result as if HannStar had obtained a defense verdict.” The court adopted the Special Master’s analysis and calculations, after finding them to be reasonable.

Expert fees, non-taxable costs. The court also rejected Best Buy's assertion that the Special Master erroneously determined that federal law, rather than Minnesota law, governed Best Buy’s recovery of expert fees and other non-taxable costs. According to Best Buy, if the court had applied Minnesota law, it would have been entitled to recover these expenses.

While both federal and state antitrust laws permit prevailing plaintiffs to recover costs, federal law limits recovery of expert witness fees to $40 per witness per day. Further, federal law does not permit courts any discretion to award non-taxable costs.

Even though Best Buy had established its injuries as to direct purchases governed by Minnesota law, the general rule that issues of trial procedure—such as reimbursement of expert witness fees—are controlled by federal law applied to limit recovery. The court rejected Best Buy's argument that the relevant Minnesota statute was substantive, not procedural.

The case is No. 10-4572 SI (MDL No. 1827).

Attorneys: David Martinez (Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP) for Best Buy Co., Inc. Christopher Alan Nedeau (Nossaman LLP) for HannStar Display Corp.

Companies: Best Buy Co., Inc.; HannStar Display Corp.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews