CASES
WASHINGTON STATE LCD CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT $63,000,000
You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual residing in or a business headquartered in Washington State that purchased between January 1, 1998 through December 1, 2006 products containing LCD, not for resale, such as a TV, laptop or computer monitor.
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels.
TFT-LCD Flat Panels (thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal-display panels) are the glass display panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors, notebook computers, and handheld devices such as color-screen cell phones and MP3 players.
The Washington State Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any WA resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006, while residing in WA (or businesses headquartered in WA) and for their own use and not for resale. Therefore, if you or your business purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006 while residing in WA, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolution color displays. There settlements total $63 million.
You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual residing in or a business headquartered in Illinois that purchased between January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2006 products containing LCD, not for resale, such as a TV, laptop or computer monitor.
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels.
TFT-LCD Flat Panels (thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal-display panels) are the glass display panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors, notebook computers, and handheld devices such as color-screen cell phones and MP3 players.
The Illinois Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any Illinois resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006, while residing in Illinois (or businesses headquartered in IL) and for their own use and not for resale. Therefore, if you or your business purchased one or more TFT LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006 while residing in Illinois, you may recover damages in this lawsuit by filing a claim. TFT-LCD panel products include most notebook computers with color displays, flat screen monitors, TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs, cell phones, MP3 players and other small-screen devices with high resolutio
ILLINOIS LCD CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT $104,646,436
CRT INDIRECT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT $576,750,000
You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual or business that purchased between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007 any Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) or any product containing a CRT, such
as a TV or computer monitor.
The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Indirect class action alleges that Chunghwa, LG, Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung and Thomson (the “Defendants”) fixed the prices of CRT from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to individuals and businesses that bought CRT Products. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” As a result of the class action the Defendants agreed to settle for $576,750,000. Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”) are a display technology that was widely used in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in displays. You are eligible to file a claim if you purchased a CRT Monitor, CRT Television or CRT Product anytime from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007 for your own use. The settlements covers “indirect” purchasers of ANY BRAND (except for Sony) of CRT Monitors and Televisions, and only includes businesses or individuals that purchased the product not for resale. You are included even if you do not currently own the product. As long as you did not buy CRT “directly” from a Defendant, your purchase is eligible. The settlements includes any purchases made in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
CRT DIRECT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT $224,000,000
You are included as a Class Member, if you are an individual or business that purchased a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), a CRT television or CRT computer monitor. The settlement covers Direct purchasers
(re-sellers and end-users), from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, of CRT Monitors or Televisions,
in any state, from Chunghwa, Daewoo, Hitachi, IRICO, LG/Zenith, LPD, Panasonic, Philips/Magnavox, Samsung, Samtel, Tatung, Thai CRT, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Thomson (the “Defendants”).
The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) DIRECT class action alleges that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRT from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to individuals and businesses that bought CRT Products. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” As a result of the class action the Defendants agreed to settle for $224,000,000. Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”) are a display technology that was widely used in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in displays.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
UUT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
$92,500,000
The City of Los Angeles (“City”) has agreed to pay up to $92.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit seeking refunds of taxes collected for telephone services. You are eligible to submit a claim if you paid the Los Angeles Telephone Utility Users Tax (called the “UUT”) at any time from October 19, 2005 to March 15, 2008, and have not already been paid a full refund by the City for such UUT, subject to offset for any refunds the City has already paid you. The tax was typically collected by telephone service providers through charges appearing on landline and mobile telephone bills.
The UUT class action alleges that the City of Los Angeles unlawfully collected a Utility User Tax on telephone bills (personal and business landlines and cellular phones) that were not taxable under the city’s UUT ordinance. The tax which was automatically collected by the telephone companies and included in your bill, accounted for approximately 10% of the bill. As a result of the class action, the city agreed to a $92.5 million settlement to be distributed to eligible claimants. The name of the case is Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC363959. You are eligible to file a claim for a refund if your service address for the landline phone was within city limits and if the billing address of the cellular phone was within city limits. Both business and personal customers are eligible to participate. The class period is from October 19, 2005 to March 15, 2008.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
PAYMENT CARD LITIGATION
A lawsuit alleges that merchants paid excessive fees to accept Visa and MasterCard cards because Visa and MasterCard, individually, and together with their respective member banks, violated the antitrust laws.
A lawsuit alleges that merchants paid excessive fees to accept Visa and MasterCard cards because Visa and MasterCard, individually, and together with their respective member banks, violated the antitrust laws.
Claim forms are being delivered and are available online beginning December 1, 2023. Class members need not sign up for a third-party service in order to participate in any monetary relief. Additional information is available at paymentcardsettlement.com. No-cost assistance is available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claims-filing period.
DRYWALL DIRECT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT $44,500,000
If you purchased Wallboard directly from one or more of the below Defendants or their subsidiaries between January 1, 2012 and November 30, 2014, you may be a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Classes certified by the Court. The settlement amount is currently pending, and class counsel is proceeding with their suit against the non-settling defendants. “Wallboard” refers to paper-backed gypsum wallboard and is also known as drywall or plasterboard.
The lawsuit alleges that CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc., USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Inc., Eagle Materials, Inc., American Gypsum Company LLC, PABCO Building Products, LLC, and TIN, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) participated in a conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices of Wallboard in violation of federal antitrust laws. The Defendants deny that they violated the antitrust laws and have asserted defenses to the claims in this lawsuit. For the Direct class action, Plaintiffs have entered into two settlement agreements to resolve claims against some Defendants, in exchange for $44.5 million and cooperation from those Defendants, as Plaintiffs continue to pursue the case against the remaining Defendants who have not settled. More specifically, TIN Inc. (“TIN”) has agreed to pay $5.25 million and provide cooperation, in exchange for the release and dismissal of TIN from the lawsuit. Additionally, USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, and USG Corporation’s subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation (collectively, “USG”) have agreed to pay $39.25 million and provide cooperation, in exchange for the release and dismissal of USG from the lawsuit. The settlement funds is being held in an interest bearing account until it is determined whether there will be additional settlements with, or judgments against, the non-settling Defendants. In connection with the TIN and USG settlements, the Court certified identical Settlement Classes composed of all persons or entities that purchased Wallboard in the United States directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries from January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2014.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
FREIGHT FORWARDERS SETTLEMENT
$303,235,361
You may be included in one or more of the Settlements (as a Class Member) if you Directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services from any of the Settling or Non-Settling Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates from January 1, 2001 through September 14, 2012 in the U.S., or outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from the U.S.
Freight forwarding companies (“Defendants”) around the world were sued by a group of businesses (“Plaintiffs”) who claim that the companies conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the prices for freight forwarding services during certain time periods. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants’ conspiracies were worldwide, including on shipping routes between the United States and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants agreed to fix various charges and surcharges associated with providing freight forwarding services. Some of the Defendants the Plaintiffs sued have agreed to Settlements in the lawsuit. The defendants are: ABX or SAIMA, BAX Global, Dachser, DFDS or DSV, DHL, Danzas (dba, DHL Global Forwarding), or Deutsche Post, DHL Japan, DHL Global Forwarding Japan K.K., Danzas Maruzen, Airborne Express, or Air Express International, EGL or Eagle, Exel Expeditors, Geodis or Geodis Wilson, Geo-Logistics or Agility, Hankyu, Hanshin Express, Hankyu Travel International or Hanshin Air Cargo, Hellman, Jet Speed, Kuehne + Nagel or Kühne + Nagel, Kintetsu World Express, “K” Line Logistics, MOL Logistics, Morrison Express, Nippon Express, Nishi-Nippon, Nissin, Panalpina, Schenker or Deutsche Bahn, SDV Toll or Baltrans, UPS Supply Chain Solutions Inc., United Parcel Service (UPS), Menlo Worldwide, or Emery, United Aircargo Consolidators, UTi Worldwide, Vantec, Yamato, Yusen Air & Sea
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
ODD (DIRECT) SETTLEMENT
$74,900,000
The Optical Disk Drive (“ODD”) class action alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of ODD Products, resulting in overcharges to consumers who directly bought ODDs and Products containing ODDs directly from the defendants between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2010. The ODD defendants are Sony, NEC, LG, Hitachi, Samsung, Toshiba, Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., BenQ, TEAC, Quanta and Panasonic. ODD includes CD drives, DVD drives, and Blu-ray drives as well as products that contain an ODD, such as a computer and laptop.
The Optical Disk Drive (“ODD”) class action alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of ODD Products, resulting in overcharges to consumers who directly bought ODDs and Products containing ODDs directly from the defendants between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2010. The ODD defendants are Sony, NEC, LG, Hitachi, Samsung, Toshiba, Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., BenQ, TEAC, Quanta and Panasonic. ODD includes CD drives, DVD drives, and Blu-ray drives as well as products that contain an ODD, such as a computer and laptop.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
US FOODS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
$297,000,000
You are a Class Member and could get benefits from the $297 million settlement, if you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup, and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost component. The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive benefits.
The class action alleges that US Foods (“USF”), between 1998 and 2005, improperly inflated the purported “cost” of goods it sold to its customers with cost-plus purchasing arrangements. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or USF. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement of $297 million. As a result of the settlement, any company who purchased, during the period of 1998 through 2005, products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup (“cost-plus arrangement”), and for which USF used a Value Added Service Provider (“VASP”) transaction to calculate the cost component, is eligible to participate in the class action settlement. The alleged VASPs were (i) Seafood Marketing Specialists, Inc., (ii) Frozen Farms, Inc., (iii) Produce Solutions, Inc., a/k/a Cross Valley Produce, Inc., (iv) Private Labels Distribution, Inc., a/k/a Private Brands Distribution, Inc., (v) Specialty Supply & Marketing, Inc., and (vi) Commodity Management Systems, Inc. Your share of the fund will depend on the number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases used a VASP transaction to calculate the invoice price. The settlement fund will be distributed to Class Members who file claims on a pro rata basis, based on Class Members’ cost-plus/VASP purchase amounts. None of the settlement fund will revert to USF.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
DRAM INDIRECT CLASS ACTION
$310 MILLION
The DRAM Indirect class action alleges that the Defendants fixed the price of DRAM causing individuals and businesses to pay more for DRAM and DRAM-containing devices. The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. Individuals and businesses are eligible for the $310 million settlement if they purchased DRAM or a device containing DRAM anywhere in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002, for their own use or for resale.
DRAM is a memory part that is sold by itself or as part of electronic devices such as computers, laptops, printers, and video game consoles. Purchases made “directly” from a DRAM manufacturer (Hitachi, Hynix, Infineon, Micron, Mitsubishi, Mosel, Nanya, NEC, Samsung, Toshiba and Winbond) are not eligible. All other purchases are eligible, such as if you purchased a Sony computer directly from Sony, or if you purchased a Samsung computer from a distributor or reseller.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
US FOODS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
$297,000,000
You are a Class Member and could get benefits from the $297 million settlement, if you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup, and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost component. The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive benefits.
The class action alleges that US Foods (“USF”), between 1998 and 2005, improperly inflated the purported “cost” of goods it sold to its customers with cost-plus purchasing arrangements. In a class action lawsuit, one or more companies or individuals, called “Class Representatives” sue on behalf of other companies and individuals who have similar claims. All of the companies and individuals together are a “Class,” and each company or individual is a “Class Member.” The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or USF. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement of $297 million. As a result of the settlement, any company who purchased, during the period of 1998 through 2005, products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup (“cost-plus arrangement”), and for which USF used a Value Added Service Provider (“VASP”) transaction to calculate the cost component, is eligible to participate in the class action settlement. The alleged VASPs were (i) Seafood Marketing Specialists, Inc., (ii) Frozen Farms, Inc., (iii) Produce Solutions, Inc., a/k/a Cross Valley Produce, Inc., (iv) Private Labels Distribution, Inc., a/k/a Private Brands Distribution, Inc., (v) Specialty Supply & Marketing, Inc., and (vi) Commodity Management Systems, Inc. Your share of the fund will depend on the number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases used a VASP transaction to calculate the invoice price. The settlement fund will be distributed to Class Members who file claims on a pro rata basis, based on Class Members’ cost-plus/VASP purchase amounts. None of the settlement fund will revert to USF.
Please call CAA at 212-300-6938 for more details.
TFT-LCD DIRECT CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT $400,000,000
You may be entitled to file a claim for the $400 million settlement that was reached in a class action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of thin film transistor‐liquid crystal display (“TFT‐LCD”) panels and certain products containing those panels. Beginning as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing through December 2006, the companies listed below engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT‐LCD panels and certain products containing those panels in violation of federal antitrust laws. In order to recover funds from the TFT-LCD $400 million class action settlement fund, you must file a claim before April 5, 2012.
You may be entitled to file a claim for the $400 million settlement that was reached in a class action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of thin film transistor‐liquid crystal display (“TFT‐LCD”) panels and certain products containing those panels. Beginning as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing through December 2006, the companies listed below engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT‐LCD panels and certain products containing those panels in violation of federal antitrust laws. In order to recover funds from the TFT-LCD $400 million class action settlement fund, you must file a claim before April 5, 2012.
Let’s talk!
Our Address
580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10036
