Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Form of notice questioned in Cathode Ray Tube settlement, (Mar 27, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs and defendants Thomson SA and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. have been ordered to file supplemental submissions addressing concerns about the current form of notice and notice plan in the parties’ proposed settlement. The federal district court in San Francisco consequently did not decide the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, in a lawsuit alleging cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers engaged in an international price fixing conspiracy (In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, March 26, 2015, Conti, S.).

Specifically, the court identified three requirements for the form of notice and notice plan: (1) the parties should agree on another national newspaper to publish notice, besides the Wall Street Journal; (2) additional submissions should be made assuring that the “Frequently Asked Questions” and “Dates to Remember” pages will be promptly updated to reflect the opt-out deadline and other settlement deadlines; and (3) the first page of the notice should be edited to include the objection and opt-out deadlines, as well as the date, time, and place of the fairness hearing.

The case number is C-07-5944-SC.

Attorneys: Bruce Lee Simon (Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP) for Crago, Inc. Betty Lisa Julian (McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP) for Hawel A. Hawel. David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, for State of Washington. Calvin Lee Litsey (Faegre Baker Daniels LLP) for Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. and Thomson SA.

Companies: Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews