1/29/2024 0 Comments Cathode ray tube settlementThe conspiracy began 20 years ago document production was not made by cartel members that no longer existed CRT demand was declining during the damages period, causing prices to fall, which created the opportunity for Defendants to claim that they did not “raise price”. Unlike the LCD case, only one defendant in the CRT case submitted a guilty plea.Ĭertification of the CRT class presented several new challenges. Netz also testified, this case was complicated by multiple defendants, based in foreign countries, some of which manufactured both the components at issue (CRTs) and final goods ( e.g. CRTs and televisions). Plaintiffs allege that the defendants formed a cartel to fix prices to direct purchasers, including television and monitor manufacturers, and that these overcharges on CRTs were subsequently passed on through the distribution channel to class members, who purchased CRT televisions and monitors in 22 states of the US during roughly 1995-2007. The defendants were CRT manufacturers that collectively controlled approximately 90% of worldwide CRT production. applEcon supported class counsel throughout the legal process, submitting nine expert reports related to class certification, antitrust liability, damages, and other issues, and helping counsel with discovery, depositions, hearings, responses to motions, and settlement negotiations.ĬRTs were the dominant technology used to display pictures in televisions and computer monitors in the 1990s and early 2000s. Janet Netz of applEcon assisted purchasers of cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and computer monitors to obtain cash settlements totaling $563 million from seven CRT manufacturers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |