![]() However, unlike the lawsuit over CRTs, this lawsuit only covered direct purchasers of the system. In January, Mitsubishi agreed to pay $13 million in an anti-trust lawsuit over price-fixing allegations involving fuel injection systems. This is the second class action lawsuit Mitsubishi Electric has settled this year. Each indirect purchaser could receive around $3,035 in compensation. The complaint covered only indirect purchasers - in other words, those who bought a product such as a TV that incorporated this product already. This case grew into multidistrict litigation covering 30 states and the District of Columbia, brought to federal court by 150,000 indirect purchasers of CRTs. CRTs were the precursor to flatscreen technology and are almost completely obsolete now. In the beginning, the plaintiffs allege that these meetings were only between Samsung, Philips, Daewoo, LG, and Chunghwa, but grew to include Mitsubishi over the years.īeginning in the 1990s until the early 2000s, for every TV or computer monitor that was produced, CRT, the glass video display, was a required component. The plaintiffs accuse a handful of companies of holding meetings to coordinate on setting prices on CRT products. Mitsubishi Electric Corp, a Japanese corporation made up of over 145,000 employees worldwide, was not the only company brought into a lawsuit alleging price-fixing beginning as early as 1995 and lasting until 2007. The original complaint claimed that the company participated in an “international conspiracy to fix the prices of cathode ray tubes” in television and computer monitors. Mitsubishi Electric Corp agreed to pay $33 million to settle all Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff claims in an anti-trust class action lawsuit over an alleged price-fixing scheme of Cathode Ray Tube products (CRTs) with other competitor companies in the industry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |