Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Sharp stated plausible federal antitrust claims against CRT manufacturers; most state antitrust claims time barred, (Mar 17, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Sharp Electronics Corporation adequately pleaded federal antitrust claims against cathode ray tube manufacturers for an alleged international price fixing conspiracy, the federal district court in San Francisco has decided. However, the manufacturer’s claims under state antitrust laws, with the exception of claims under New York’s Donnelly Act, were barred by the statute of limitations (In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, March 13, 2014, Conti, S.).

Sharp elected to opt out of multidistrict class action litigation against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers. Sharp filed suit against Technologies Displays Americas, LLC (TDA) in 2013, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), New York’s Donnelly Act, and other state antitrust laws. Sharp alleged that TDA, a consumer electronics company, participated in the conspiracy from 1999 to 2005, when its CRT business was acquired by Videocon Industries. Videocon controlled TDA’s practices and remained involved in the conspiracy through 2007. Under Videocon’s direction, TDA participated in conspiracy –related information sharing and meetings to fix the prices of CRTs and CRT products. TDA moved to dismiss Sharp’s complaint.

The court determined that Sharp plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim regarding TDA’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy. Although Sharp did not plead the dates on which the conspiracy-related meetings occurred, the plaintiff did plead that executives of Videocon - which controlled TDA practices - attended the price-fixing meetings. The allegations about TDA’s business adequately stated TDA’s involvement in the conspiracy and put the company on notice of Sharp’s claims against it.

The court also found that Sharp’s state antitrust law claims, with the exception of its claims under the Donnelly Act, were barred by the statute of limitations. Sharp could assert fraudulent concealment only through November 2007, when foreign competition agencies announced investigations into CRT manufacturers. Moreover, the statute of limitations was not tolled under the class-action tolling doctrine since TDA was not a defendant in any other previously filed cases against CRT manufacturers. However, the court concluded that the statute of limitations for Sharp’s claim under the Donnelly Act was tolled due to the commencement of the government’s federal criminal investigation of CRT manufacturers in 2009 and presently remains pending. 

The case is No. C-07-5944-SC.

Attorneys:  Stephen E. Taylor (Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP) for Sharp Electronics Corp.

Companies: Sharp Electronics Corp.; Technologies Displays Americas, LLC

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews