Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-509/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL

ECF No. 4953

Before the Court is the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“IPPs”) Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in Support of Final Approval of Plan of Distribution of Chunghwa Settlement Fund, 

ECF No. 4953. The Court previously granted a motion for preliminary approval of the plan, ECF 

No. 4712, and held a fairness hearing on November 14, 2016. The Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties and Claims

The history of this case is well known to the parties, objectors, and interested states. By 

way of summation, this case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to price-fix cathode ray 

tubes (“CRTs”), a core component of tube-style screens for common devices including televisions 

and computer monitors. This conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007, involved 

many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and allegedly resulted in overcharges of 

hundreds of millions, if not billions, of U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased and sold 

CRTs or finished products containing CRTs for purposes such as personal use. A civil suit was 

originally filed in 2007, ECF No. 1, consolidated by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

shortly thereafter, see ECF No. 122, assigned as an MDL to Judge Samuel Conti, see id., and 

ultimately transferred to the undersigned, see ECF No. 4162. This order concerns the settlement 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5040 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of one part of this expansive case. 

B. Procedural Background

In 2011, the IPPs settled with Chunghwa1for $10,000,000. The Chunghwa Settlement 

postponed approval of the allocation of funds pending additional settlements with the remaining 

Defendants. On July 7, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the settlements between the IPPs 

and those other Defendants. ECF No. 4712. In the same order, the Court preliminarily approved 

the Chunghwa Settlement allocation plan and notice procedures,

2

but ordered that the claim period 

be reopened for 120 days for resellers in the 24 Chunghwa Settlement states. Id. at 31. The Court 

gave resellers 60 days to object to the settlement because they had “not been given notice of the 

plan or the opportunity to file claims.” Id. The Court explained that its “review of the notice, 

allocation, and distribution procedures [were] akin to a preliminary approval of the revised 

Chunghwa settlement.” ECF No. 4712 at 32. The IPPs have now submitted a memorandum of 

points and authorities in support of final approval of the Chunghwa Settlement allocation plan, 

stating that that “[n]otice was provided in accordance with the Court’s Order.” ECF No. 4953 at 

2. 

II. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ALLOCATION PLAN

B. Analysis

Consistent with its previous order granting preliminary approval, the Court now finally 

approves the IPP’s proposed allocation plan and notice procedures.

1. Adequacy of Notice

“The class must be notified of a proposed settlement in a manner that does not 

systematically leave any group without notice.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of 

City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). “Notice is 

satisfactory if it “generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those 

 

1

“Chunghwa” includes Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. See ECF Nos. 992 (preliminary approval,

granted August 9, 2011), 1105 (final approval, granted March 22, 2012).

2 As the IPPs explain in their memorandum, the Special Master originally disapproved of the 

Chunghwa distribution plan, which was revised and accepted by the Special Master, ECF No. 

4445, and this Court.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5040 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.” Mendoza v. Tucson 

Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980).

Notice procedures for the Chunghwa Settlement were outline in the Court’s July 7, 2016 

Order. ECF No. 4712 at 31-33. The Court determined that the “forms of notice . . . [were] the 

best notice possible” and “expressly approve[d] the use of emails banner ads, and any other 

mechanism previously used in this case to ensure maximal reach to resellers.” Id. 

In their memorandum and accompanying declaration and exhibits, the IPPs outline how 

they “implemented [the] Chunghwa notice program”:

 direct mail notice to 88,121 resellers of CRT Products identified using the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) (id. ¶ 5); 

 direct email notice to 27,928 resellers of CRT Products identified through the Consumer 

Technology Publishing Group (id. ¶ 6);

 digital notice via paid advertisements on the TWICE website, an online magazine that 

provides multichannel-marketing solutions targeted to resellers of consumer electronics 

and computers (id. ¶ 7);

 publication notice in the Sunday New York Times (id. ¶ 8);

 English and Spanish press releases carried by 360 domestic and foreign websites with a 

total potential audience of approximately 166 million (id. ¶ 9);

 direct mail and/or email notice to all end user members of the Chunghwa Settlement

Class who filed claims (id. ¶¶ 11-12);

 Direct email notice to an additional 1,110 persons who had previously registered at the 

settlement website to request updates or who had previously opted out of the end user 

settlements (id. ¶ 13); and

 Publication on the CRT settlement website, www.crtclaims.com. (id. ¶ 4.)

ECF No. 4953 at 5 (citations to Fisher Declaration in Support of the IPP’s memorandum). The 

form of the notice used matched the form approved by this Court, and outlined the terms of the 

settlement and allocation plan described below. The only changes from the Court-approved form 

were “(1) the amount of the Net Settlement Fund was changed to more accurately reflect the 

deductions for attorneys’ fees and the Chunghwa Settlement’s share of litigation expenses (see 

Final Approval Order at 32 (‘The notice must be updated to reflect the proper settlement figure 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5040 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

available for distribution.’); (2) the September 30, 2016 deadline for objecting to the plan of 

distribution, the November 29, 2016 deadline for filing a claim, and the November 14, 2016 

Fairness Hearing date, were added.” Id. at n.7. No objections to either the form of the notice or 

the means of distribution were received. Id. at 9.

In light of the IPP’s actions, the lack of objections, and the Court’s prior order granting 

preliminary approval of the notice program, the Court finds the parties have sufficiently provided 

notice to the settlement class members. See Lundell v. Dell, Inc., Case No. 05–3970 JWRS, 2006 

WL 3507938, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2006) (holding that notice sent via email and first class mail 

constituted the “best practicable notice” and satisfied due process requirements).

2. Plan of Distribution

“Approval of a plan of allocation of settlement proceeds in a class action . . . is governed 

by the same standards of review applicable to approval of the settlement as a whole: the plan must 

be fair, reasonable and adequate.” In re Oracle Sec. Litig., No. C–90–0931–VRW, 1994 WL 

502054, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 1994) (citing Class Pls. v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 

1284–85 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Some aspects of the allocation plan have already been finally approved by this Court. 

Under the Chunghwa Settlement, funds will distributed to claimants in 24 states pro rata in 

accordance with those states’ respective populations in 2000. ECF No. 4712 at 29. The Attorneys 

General of Illinois and Oregon will be allocated 8.59% and 2.37% of the Net Settlement Fund, 

respectively. The Attorneys General will distribute these monies to residents of Illinois and 

Oregon, with the remaining funds distributed to claimants in the other 22 states. ECF No. 922.

What remains to be finalized is the allocation of the Settlement funds between resellers and 

end-user claimants within these 22 states. The IPPs have proposed that each state’s “pro rata share 

will be divided 50/50 between resellers and end-users, and then distributed to reseller and end-user 

claimants on a pro rata basis.” ECF No. 4953 at 6. Under this plan, “payment amounts will be 

based on the number of valid claims filed, as well as on the number and type of CRT Product(s) 

purchased: Standard CRT Television (screen size of less than 30 inches); Large CRT Television 

(screen size of 30 inches or larger); or CRT Computer Monitor.” Id. “[C]laims for different types 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5040 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of CRT Products will be weighted as follows: claims for purchases of Standard CRT Televisions 

will be weighted as 1; claims for purchases of Large CRT Televisions will be weighted as 4.3; and 

claims for purchases of CRT Computer Monitors will be weighted as 3.” Id. Although the claims 

period for resellers is still open, making exact per-claimant recovery uncertain, [t]he maximum 

payment will be three times the estimated overcharge for each claimant.” Id. If “reseller 

claimants do not exhaust a particular state’s reseller fund, the residue will be distributed pro rata to 

existing end-user claimants from that state.” Id. 

Objections to this 50/50 allocation were considered and rejected by the Court in its July 7 

Order, and no additional objections have been received. ECF No. 4712 at 30-31. As the Court 

recognized, although it is possible that a more precise allocation plan could be fashioned, 

undertaking such an effort would be time-consuming and costly. Id. Moreover, the standard of 

review requires only an allocation plan that has a “reasonable, rational basis”; it does not require 

the best possible plan of allocation. Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp., No. SACV 11-00406 

DOC, 2014 WL 1802293, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014). The Court sees no reason to change its 

conclusion that the 50/50 allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 

CONCLUSION

The Court grants final approval of the Chunghwa Settlement allocation plan, lifts the stay 

on the distribution of funds, and authorizes Plaintiffs to distribute the settlement funds to Class 

Members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5040 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 5