Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, TOP STORY—NDCal: Toshiba Not Entitled to Dismissal of Best Buy's Antitrust Claims over LCD Products, (Jan 25, 2013)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Retailer Best Buy Co., Inc. adequately alleged standing to seek damages resulting from a price fixing conspiracy involving manufacturers of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, the federal district court in San Francisco has held. Defendant Toshiba Corporation's motion to dismiss federal antitrust claims on standing grounds and Minnesota antitrust claims on statute of limitations grounds was denied (In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, January 23, 2013, Illston, S.).

Toshiba argued that Best Buy failed to allege facts sufficient to support standing under the ownership and control exception to the Illinois Brick doctrine, which limits federal antitrust standing to direct purchasers, in order pursue claims for its “indirect” purchases. In addition, Toshiba contended that Best Buy had to “at a minimum, identify the initial sellers of the LCD Panels and allege that those sellers owned or controlled the entities from whom Best Buy purchased LCD products.” According to Toshiba, Best Buy only bought finished products from Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (TAIS) but did not allege that TAIS was owned or controlled by a seller of LCD panels after Toshiba exited the LCD panel manufacturing market.

Best Buy alleged that it purchased LCD products from TAIS, Toshiba's U.S. subsidiary, and that Toshiba owned or controlled a joint venture that served as the panel manufacturer for Toshiba. These allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the exception at this stage, according to the court. The court also noted that it had already rejected Toshiba's argument that Best Buy's failure to identify the manufacturer of each LCD panel in the finished products precluded standing.

Statute of Limitations

Best Buy’s Minnesota antitrust claims based on direct purchases were not untimely. Best Buy filed suit on August 3, 2012. Toshiba argued that a 3-1/2 year gap existed between December 11, 2006, when tolling pursuant to a fraudulent concealment theory expired, and May 18, 2010, when the parties entered into a contractual tolling agreement. Best Buy asserted that tolling applied to its later-filed state law claims based on the filing of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint (DPP-CAC), even though the DPP-CAC did not involve those claims. However, the filing of a DPP-CAC did not toll the statute of limitations for claims that were not asserted in the class action, according to the court.

Although Best Buy’s tolling argument failed, the court rejected Toshiba's assertion that Best Buy’s Minnesota claims based on direct purchases should be dismissed based on limitations periods identified in vendor agreements.

A vendor agreement between Best Buy and Toshiba American Consumer Products, Inc. (TACP) provided a two year limitations period for Best Buy to bring a claim “of any nature relative” to the agreement. Toshiba contended that Best Buy failed to file a complaint until after this limitations period passed. However, the agreement did not bar the claims because Best Buy never specifically alleged claims based on purchases from TACP. A separate vendor agreement between Best Buy and TAIS, which provided a three year limitations period for claims arising from breach of the agreement, did not encompass antitrust claims, according to the court.

The case is MDL. No. 1827, Case No. C 12-4114 SI.

Attorneys: David Martinez (Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.) for Best Buy Co., Inc. John H. Chung (White & Case LLP) for Toshiba Corp.

Companies: Best Buy Co., Inc.; Toshiba Corp.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust CaliforniaNews