You're viewing Docket Item 1 from the case Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 1 of 49








UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION,

No.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff,



v.

HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS,
LTD.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.;
HITACHI ASIA, LTD.; HITACHI
ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.;
SHENZHEN SEG HITACHI COLOR
DISPLAY DEVICES, LTD.; IRICO
GROUP CORPORATION; IRICO
GROUP ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
IRICO DISPLAY DEVICES CO., LTD.;
LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG
ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; LG
ELECTRONICS TAIWAN TAIPEI CO.,
LTD.; LP DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL
LTD.; BEIJING MATSUSHITA COLOR
CRT CO., LTD.; KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.; PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION; PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES
(TAIWAN), LTD.; PHILIPS DA
AMAZONIA INDUSTRIA
ELECTRONICA LTDA.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
SAMTEL COLOR LTD.; THAI CRT CO.,
LTD.; TOSHIBA CORPORATION;
TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 1

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 2 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS,
LLC; TOSHIBA AMERICA
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.;
TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC.; CHUNGHWA
PICTURE TUBES, LTD.; CHUNGHWA
PICTURE TUBES (MALAYSIA);
TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA,
INC.

Defendants.



Plaintiff Costco Wholesale Corporation brings this action for damages and injunctive

relief under the antitrust laws of the United States and of the states of California, Arizona,

Florida, Illinois, and Washington. Costco alleges as follows based on information including the

pleas and prosecutions of certain Defendants and their executives as well as allegations in the

complaints of the direct and indirect purchaser classes and of other direct action plaintiffs,

allegations that were in some cases tested by motions to dismiss in MDL No. 1917.

INTRODUCTION

1.

Defendants and their co-conspirators formed an international cartel that conducted

a conspiracy extending at a minimum from March 1, 1995, through November 25, 2007 (the

“Relevant Period” in terms of unlawful acts) for the purpose and to the effect of raising or

maintaining prices and reducing capacity and output for cathode ray tubes (“CRTs”). The effects

of the conspiracy on prices lasted into at least 2008.

2.

Defendants are or were among the leading manufacturers of: (a) color picture

tubes (“CPTs”), which are CRTs used primarily in color televisions; (b) color display tubes

(“CDTs”), which are CRTs used primarily in color computer monitors; and (c) electronic devices

containing CPTs (such as televisions) or CDTs (such as computer monitors). For the purposes of

this Complaint, CPTs of all sizes and the products containing them are referred to collectively as

“CPT Products.” Also for the purposes of this Complaint, CDTs of all sizes and the products

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 2

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 3 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

containing them are referred to as “CDT Products.” CDT Products and CPT Products are

referred to collectively as “CRT Products.”

3.

Defendants control the CRT industry, a multibillion dollar market. During the

Relevant Period, virtually every household in the United States owned at least one CRT Product.

The conspiracy was directed at the United States and was intended to substantially affect prices

and supply in the United States, including prices paid by and the supply available to Plaintiff.

4.

Since the mid-1990s, the CRT industry faced significant economic pressure as

customer preferences for new technologies shrank profits and threatened the industry. To

increase profitability and decrease the erosion of pricing in the CRT market, Defendants

conspired to fix prices.

5.

Defendants or their agents agreed, inter alia, to: (a) fix target prices and price

guidelines; (b) exchange enabling information on shipments, prices, production, customer

demand, and other factors; (c) coordinate public statements regarding capacity and supply;

(d) resolve issues created by asymmetrical vertical integration among some of the co-

conspirators; (e) keep their collusive meetings secret; (f) expose cheating on the agreements and

discuss the reconciliation of accounts; (g) allocate market share of overall sales; (g) influence

and, at times, coordinate pricing with producers in other geographic areas; (h) limit competition

for certain customers; (i) allocate customers and each producer’s share of key customers’ sales;

and (j) restrict output.

6.

The conspiracy concerning CRTs began at least as early as March of 1995 with

bilateral meetings. Also beginning in 1995, the co-conspirators began to engage in informal

group meetings. By 1997, these group meetings had become more formalized, as described in

greater detail below. There were at least 500 conspiracy meetings and communications during

the Relevant Period. Meetings occurred in locales including Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia,

Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, China, the U.K., and Europe and included representatives from

the highest levels of the companies, as well as regional managers and others.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 3

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 4 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

7.

The conspiracy affected billions of dollars of commerce throughout the United

States.

8.

This conspiracy is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice

(“DOJ”) and by foreign competition authorities. The first participant to be indicted by the DOJ

was C.Y. Lin, the former Chairman and CEO of Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., who

had a two-count indictment issued against him by a federal grand jury in San Francisco on

February 10, 2009. Since then, five more individuals have been indicted in connection with

Defendants’ CRT price-fixing conspiracy.

9.

Throughout the Relevant Period, the conspiracy moderated the normal downward

pressure on prices caused by periods of oversupply, process and other efficiency gains, and

technological change. The prices of producers who were not members of the conspiracy were

also higher as a result of the conspiracy than they otherwise would have been. Defendants’

conspiracy resulted in unusually long periods of higher prices and higher profits. Even when

prices declined, they declined from supra-competitive levels, rather than levels set by free and

open competition, and prices declined less than they would have in a competitive market. As a

result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff paid higher prices for CRT Products from any

source than it would have paid in a competitive market.

10.

During the Relevant Period, Costco purchased CRT Products in the United States

directly and indirectly from Defendants. Costco thus suffered damages as a result of

Defendants’ conspiracy, and brings this action to recover the overcharges paid for the CRT

Products containing price-fixed CRTs it purchased during the Relevant Period.

A.

Plaintiff

PARTIES

11.

Plaintiff Costco Wholesale Corporation is now a Washington corporation with its

principal place of business in Issaquah, Washington. Costco operates throughout the United

States and elsewhere and sold CRT Products in its warehouses and on its website, Costco.com.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 4

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 5 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

12.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is the result of the combination of two companies:

Costco and Price Club. Price Club was founded in San Diego, California, in 1976, and grew to

76 United States stores by 1992, with over half in California. Costco was founded in 1983 in

Washington and by 1992 had over 90 stores nationwide, with nearly half in California. In 1993,

Costco and Price Club merged, and Price/Costco, Inc. was formed and incorporated in Delaware.

As the new name suggested, the two companies were not fully integrated for many years, and the

company had two principal executive offices, in San Diego, California, and Kirkland,

Washington. Many headquarters functions continued in California during the Relevant Period.

In 1999, the company changed its name to Costco Wholesale Corporation and reincorporated in

Washington.

13.

During the Relevant Period, Costco purchased in the United States large numbers

of CRT Products whose prices were inflated by the conspiracy. Costco purchased and sold more

such CRT Products in California than in any other state during the Relevant Period. Costco’s

negotiations for the purchase of CRT Products took place primarily in the United States, and the

basic choice of vendors was made from the company’s headquarters. Decisions among approved

vendors and as to volumes to purchase were made in, and Costco purchase orders were created in

and issued from, regional offices located in multiple states including California, Washington,

Texas, Virginia, and Georgia. Costco issued more purchase orders for CRT Products from

California than from any other state. The purchase orders reflected the volumes affected by and

incorporated the supra-competitive prices resulting from the conspiracy. Invoices were sent to

Costco in Washington, with the invoices reflecting volumes and prices specified in purchase

orders issued from the regional offices.

14.

Costco received CRT Products at distribution centers located in states including

California, Washington, Illinois, Arizona, Utah, Texas, New Jersey, Georgia, and Florida.

Costco received far more CRT Products in California than in any other state.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 5

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 6 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

15.

Costco felt the effects of Defendants’ conspiracy in all of its stores, as elevated

prices for CRT Products reduced sales of those products in each store, and reduced store income,

profits, and employment needs.

16.

Costco purchased finished products containing CRTs from some Defendants and

co-conspirators, from affiliates of some Defendants and co-conspirators, from companies that

have other important business arrangements with Defendants and co-conspirators, from

companies that cannot bring claims of their own due to the Foreign Trade Antitrust

Improvements Act, and from companies that have since gone out of business. There is no

realistic possibility that these sellers will seek to recover for the damage caused by the

conspiracy, and in fact they did not seek to recover before the expiration of the statute of

limitations. Many such sellers had their United States or only headquarters or centers of

operations in California and both paid overcharges there and passed them onto Costco there.

B.

Defendants

1.

Hitachi Entities

17.

Defendant Hitachi, Ltd. is a Japanese company with its principal place of business

at 6-6, Marunouchi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8280, Japan. Hitachi, Ltd. is the parent

company for the Hitachi brand of CRT Products. In 1996, Hitachi, Ltd.’s worldwide market

share for color CRTs was 20 percent. During the Relevant Period, Hitachi, Ltd. manufactured,

marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or

affiliates, throughout the United States.

18.

Defendant Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (“Hitachi Displays”) is a Japanese company

with its principal place of business located at AKS Building 5F, Kanda Neribei-cho 3, Chiyoda-

ku, Tokyo, 101-0022, Japan. Hitachi Displays was originally established as Mobara Works of

Hitachi, Ltd. in Mobara City, Japan, in 1943. In 2002, all the departments of planning,

development, design, manufacturing, and sales concerned with the display business of Hitachi,

Ltd. were spun off to create a separate company called Hitachi Displays. During the Relevant

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 6

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 7 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Period, Hitachi Displays manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either

directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant Hitachi,

Ltd. dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of Hitachi Displays relating to

the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

19.

Defendant Hitachi America, Ltd. (“Hitachi America”) is a New York company

with its principal place of business located at 50 Prospect Avenue, Tarrytown, New York 10591.

Hitachi America is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Hitachi, Ltd. During

the Relevant Period, Hitachi America manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT

Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

Defendant Hitachi, Ltd. dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of Hitachi

America relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

20.

Defendant Hitachi Asia, Ltd. (“Hitachi Asia”) is a Singaporean company with its

principal place of business located at 7 Tampines Grande, #08-01 Hitachi Square, Singapore

528736. Hitachi Asia is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Hitachi, Ltd.

During the Relevant Period, Hitachi Asia manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT

Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

Defendant Hitachi, Ltd. dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of Hitachi

Asia relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

21.

Defendant Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. (“HEDUS”) is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business located at 208 Fairforest Way, Greenville, South

Carolina 29607. HEDUS is a subsidiary of Defendant Hitachi, Ltd and Hitachi Displays.

During the Relevant Period, HEDUS manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT

Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

Defendants Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi Displays dominated and controlled the finances, policies,

and affairs of HEDUS relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 7

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 8 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

22.

Defendant Shenzhen SEG Hitachi Color Display Devices, Ltd. (“Hitachi

Shenzhen”) was a Chinese company with its principal place of business located at 5001

Huanggang Road, Futian District, Shenzhen 518035, China. Hitachi Displays, Ltd. owned at

least a 25 percent interest in Hitachi Shenzhen until November 8, 2007 (which was around the

time that the government investigations into the CRT industry began). Thus, Hitachi Shenzhen

was a member of the Hitachi corporate group for all but the last two weeks of the Relevant

Period. During the Relevant Period, Hitachi Shenzhen manufactured, marketed, sold, and

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States. Defendants Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi Displays dominated and controlled the

finances, policies, and affairs of Hitachi Shenzhen relating to the antitrust violations alleged in

this complaint.

23.

Defendants Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Hitachi America, Hitachi Asia,

HEDUS, and Hitachi Shenzhen are collectively referred to as “Hitachi.”

2.

IRICO Entities

24.

Defendant IRICO Group Corporation (“IGC”) is a Chinese company with its

principal place of business located at 1 Caihong Rd., Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province 712021.

IGC is the parent company for multiple subsidiaries engaged in the manufacture, marketing,

distribution and sale of CRT Products. During the Relevant Period, IGC manufactured,

marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or

affiliates, throughout the United States.

25.

Defendant IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd. (“IGE”) is a Chinese company with

its principal place of business located at 1 Caihong Rd., Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province

712021. IGE is owned by Defendant IGC. According to its website, IGE was the first CRT

manufacturer in China and one of the leading global manufacturers of CRTs. The website also

claims that in 2003, IGE was the largest CRT manufacturer in China in terms of production and

sales volume, sales revenue and aggregated profit, and taxation. During the Relevant Period,

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 8

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 9 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

IGE manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant IGC dominated and controlled

the finances, policies, and affairs of IGE relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this

complaint.

26.

Defendant IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd. (“IDDC”) is a Chinese company

with its principal place of business located at No. 16, Fenghui South Road West, District High-

tech Development Zone, Xi’an, SXI 710075. IDDC is a partially-owned subsidiary of Defendant

IGC. In 2006, IDDC was China’s top CRT maker. During the Relevant Period, IDDC

manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant IGC dominated and controlled

the finances, policies, and affairs of IDDC relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this

complaint.

27.

Defendants IGC, IGE, and IDDC are collectively referred to as “IRICO.”

3.

LG Electronics Entities

28.

Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGEI”) is a corporation organized under the

laws of the Republic of Korea with its principal place of business located at LG Twin Towers, 20

Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-721, South Korea. LGEI is a $48.5 billion global

force in consumer electronics, home appliances, and mobile communications, which established

its first overseas branch office in New York in 1968. The company’s name was changed from

Gold Star Communications to LGEI in 1995, the year in which it also acquired Zenith in the

United States. In 2001, LGEI transferred its CRT business to a 50/50 joint venture with

Defendant Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. called LG.Philips Displays (“LGPD”). On

April 1, 2007, LGPD became an independent company and changed its name to LP Displays

International Ltd. During the Relevant Period, LGEI manufactured, marketed, sold, and

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 9

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 10 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

29.

Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc. (“LGEUSA”) is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business located at 1000 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

07632. LGEUSA is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant LGEI. During the

Relevant Period, LGEUSA manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either

directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant LGEI

dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of LGEUSA relating to the antitrust

violations alleged in this complaint.

30.

Defendant LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. (“LGETT”) is a Taiwanese

entity with its principal place of business located at 7F, No. 47, Lane 3, Jihu Road, NeiHu

District, Taipei City, Taiwan. LGETT is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant

LG Electronics, Inc. During the Relevant Period, LGETT manufactured, marketed, sold, and

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States. Defendant LGEI dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of

LGETT relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

31.

Defendants LGEI, LGEUSA, and LGETT are collectively referred to as “LG

Electronics.”

4.

LP Displays

32.

Defendant LP Displays International Ltd. f/k/a LGPD (“LP Displays”) is a Hong

Kong company located at Corporate Communications, 6th Floor, ING Tower, 308 Des Voeux

Road Central, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong. LP Displays is the successor entity to LGPD, which

was created in 2001 as a 50/50 joint venture between Defendants LGEI and Royal Philips. In

March 2007, LP Displays became an independent company. LP Displays is a leading supplier of

CRTs for use in television sets and computer monitors with annual sales for 2006 of over

$2 billion and a market share of 27 percent. LP Displays announced in March 2007 that Royal

Philips and LGEI would cede control over the company and the shares would be owned by

financial institutions and private equity firms. During the Relevant Period, LP Displays

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 10

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 11 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

5.

BMCC

33.

Defendant Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd. (“BMCC”) is a Chinese

company with its principal place of business located at No. 9 Jiuxianqiao N. Rd., Dashanzi

Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. BMCC is a joint venture company, 50 percent of which is

held by Beijing Orient Electronics (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Electronics Import &

Export Beijing Company (a China state-owned enterprise), and Beijing Yayunchun Brach of the

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (a China state-owned enterprise). BMCC is the

second largest producer of CRTs for televisions in China. During the Relevant Period, BMCC

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

6.

Philips Entities

34.

Defendant Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. a/k/a Royal Philips Electronics

(“Royal Philips”) is a Dutch company with its principal place of business located at Breitner

Center, Amstelplein 2, Amsterdam, 1096 BC, The Netherlands. Royal Philips, founded in 1891,

is one of the world’s largest electronics companies, with 160,900 employees located in over 60

countries. Royal Philips had sole ownership of its CRT business until 2001. In 2001, Royal

Philips transferred its CRT business to a 50/50 joint venture with Defendant LGEI, forming

Defendant LGPD (n/k/a LP Displays). In December 2005, as a result of increased pressure on

demand and prices for CRT Products, Royal Philips wrote off the remaining book value of

126 million Euros of its investment and said it would not inject further capital into the venture.

During the Relevant Period, Royal Philips manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT

Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

35.

Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Philips America”) is

a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 1251 Avenue of the

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 11

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 12 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Americas, New York, New York 10020-1104. Philips America is a wholly-owned and

controlled subsidiary of Defendant Royal Philips. During the Relevant Period, Philips America

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant Royal Philips dominated and

controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of Philips America relating to the antitrust violations

alleged in this complaint.

36.

Defendant Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd. (“Philips Taiwan”) is a

Taiwanese company with its principal place of business located at 15F 3-1 Yuanqu Street,

Nangang District, Taipei, Taiwan. Philips Taiwan is a subsidiary of Defendant Royal Philips.

During the Relevant Period, Philips Taiwan manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT

Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

Defendant Royal Philips dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of Philips

Taiwan relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

37.

Defendant Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda. (“Philips Brazil”) is a

Brazilian company with its principal place of business located at Av Torquato Tapajos 2236, 1

andar (parte 1), Flores, Manaus, AM 39048-660, Brazil. Philips Brazil is a wholly-owned and

controlled subsidiary of Defendant Royal Philips. During the Relevant Period, Philips Brazil

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant Royal Philips dominated and

controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of Philips Brazil relating to the antitrust violations

alleged in this complaint.

38.

Defendants Royal Philips, Philips America, Philips Taiwan, and Philips Brazil are

collectively referred to as “Philips.”

7.

Samsung Entities

39.

Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a South Korean company

with its principal place of business located at Samsung Electronics Building, 1320-10, Seocho 2-

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 12

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 13 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-857, South Korea. It is South Korea’s top electronics company.

During the Relevant Period, SEC manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products,

either directly or through subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

40.

Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEAI”) is a New York

corporation with its principal place of business located at 105 Challenger Road, 6th Floor,

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEAI is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of

Defendant SEC. During the Relevant Period, SEAI manufactured, marketed, sold, and

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States. Defendant SEC dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of

Samsung SEAI relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

41.

Defendants SEC, SEAI, and their subsidiaries and affiliates are collectively

referred to as “Samsung.”

8.

Samtel

42.

Defendant Samtel Color Ltd. (“Samtel”) is an Indian company with its principal

place of business located at 52, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065.

Samtel’s market share for CRTs sold in India is approximately 40 percent, and it is that country’s

largest exporter of CRT Products. Samtel has gained safety approvals from the United States,

Canada, Germany, and Great Britain for its CRT Products. During the Relevant Period, Samtel

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries and affiliates, throughout the United States.

9.

Thai CRT

43.

Defendant Thai CRT Co., Ltd. (“Thai CRT”) is a Thai company located at 1/F 26

Siam Cement Rd., Bangsue Dusit, Bangkok, Thailand. Thai CRT is a subsidiary of Siam

Cement Group, and it was established in 1986 as Thailand’s first manufacturer of CRTs for color

televisions. During the Relevant Period, Thai CRT manufactured, marketed, sold, and

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 13

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 14 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States.

10.

Toshiba Entities

44.

Defendant Toshiba Corporation (“TC”) is a Japanese company with its principal

place of business located at 1-1, Shibaura 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8001, Japan. In

2001, TC held a 5 to 10 percent worldwide market share for CRTs used in televisions and in

computer monitors. In December 1995, TC partnered with Orion Electronic Co. and two other

non-defendant entities to form P.T. Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia (“TEDI”) in

Indonesia. TEDI was projected to have an annual production capacity of 2.3 million CRTs by

1999. In 2002, TC consolidated its CRT business into MTPD, a joint venture. During the

Relevant Period, TC manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly

or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States.

45.

Defendant Toshiba America, Inc. (“Toshiba America”) is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business located at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4110, New

York, New York 10020. Toshiba America is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of

Defendant TC. During the Relevant Period, Toshiba America manufactured, marketed, sold, and

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States. Defendant TC dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of

Toshiba America relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

46.

Defendant Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC (“TACP”) is a limited

liability company that is headquartered at 82 Totowa Rd., Wayne, New Jersey 07470-3114.

TACP is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant TC through Toshiba America.

During the Relevant Period, TACP manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products,

either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant

TC dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of TACP relating to the antitrust

violations alleged in this complaint.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 14

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 15 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

47.

Defendant Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (“TAEC”) is a

California corporation with its principal place of business located at 19900 MacArthur

Boulevard, Suite 400, Irvine, California 92612. TAEC is a wholly-owned and controlled

subsidiary of Defendant TC through Toshiba America. During the Relevant Period, TAEC

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its

subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the United States. Defendant TC dominated and controlled

the finances, policies, and affairs of TAEC relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this

complaint.

48.

Defendant Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”) is a California

corporation with its principal place of business located at 9740 Irvine Blvd., Irvine, California

92618-1697. TAIS is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant TC through

Toshiba America. During the Relevant Period, TAIS manufactured, marketed, sold, and

distributed CRT Products, either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates, throughout the

United States. Defendant TC dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of

TAIS relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

49.

Defendants TC, Toshiba America, TACP, TAEC, and TAIS are collectively

referred to as “Toshiba.”

11.

Chunghwa Entities

50.

Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. (“Chunghwa PT”) is a Taiwanese

company with its principal place of business at No. 1127, Heping Rd., Bade City, Taoyuan,

Taiwan. It was established in 1971 by Tatung Corporation to manufacture CRTs. In 1974,

Chunghwa PT’s CRTs received certification by the United States, giving the company entry into

that market. Chunghwa PT's Board of Directors includes representatives from Tatung Company,

and its Chairman is also the Chairman and General Manager of Tatung Company. Throughout

the Relevant Period, Chunghwa PT was one of the major global CRT manufacturers. During the

Relevant Period, Chunghwa PT manufactured, sold, and distributed CRT Products either directly

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 15

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 16 of 49

or through its subsidiaries or affiliates (such as its Fuzhou subsidiary) throughout the United

States.

51.

Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (“Chunghwa

Malaysia”) is a Malaysian company with its principal place of business at Lot I, Subang Hi-Tech

Industrial Park, Batu Tiga, 4000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. It is a wholly-

owned and controlled subsidiary of Chunghwa. Chunghwa Malaysia is focused on CRT

production, and it has established itself as one of the leading worldwide suppliers of CRTs.

During the Relevant Period, Chunghwa Malaysia manufactured, sold, and distributed CRT

Products either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates throughout the United States.

Defendant Chunghwa PT dominated and controlled the finances, policies, and affairs of

Chunghwa Malaysia relating to the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint.

52.

Defendants Chunghwa PT and Chunghwa Malaysia are collectively referred to as

“Chunghwa.”

12.

Tatung Company of America, Inc.

53.

Tatung Company of America, Inc. (“Tatung America”) is a California corporation

with its principal place of business located at 2850 El Presidio Street, Long Beach, California.

Tatung America is a subsidiary of Tatung Company. Currently, Tatung Company owns

approximately half of Tatung America. The other half used to be owned by Lun Kuan Lin, the

daughter of Tatung Company's former Chairman, T.S. Lin. Following Lun Kuan Lin’s death,

her shares passed to her two children. During the Relevant Period, Tatung America

manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed CRT Products manufactured by, among others,

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., either directly or through its subsidiaries or affiliates throughout

the United States.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 16

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 17 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

C.

Agents and Co-Conspirators

54.

The acts alleged against Defendants in this Complaint were authorized, ordered,

or done by their officers, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the

management and operation of Defendants’ businesses or affairs.

55.

Each Defendant acted as the principal, agent, or joint venturer of, or for, other

Defendants with respect to the acts, violations, and course of conduct alleged by Costco.

56. When Plaintiff refers to a corporate family or companies by a single name in

allegations of participation in the conspiracy, it is to be understood that one or more employees

or agents of entities within the corporate family engaged in conspiratorial meetings on behalf of

every company in that family. In fact, the individual participants in the conspiratorial meetings

and discussions did not always know the corporate affiliation of their counterparts, nor did they

distinguish between the entities within a corporate family.

57.

Individual participants entered into agreements on behalf of, and reported these

meetings and discussions to, their respective corporate families. As a result, the entire corporate

families were represented in meetings and discussions by their agents and were parties to the

agreements reached in them. Furthermore, to the extent that subsidiaries within the corporate

families distributed CRT Products, these subsidiaries played a significant role in the conspiracy

because Defendants wished to ensure that the prices for such products would not undercut the

pricing agreements reached at these various meetings. Thus, all entities within the corporate

families were active, knowing participants in the alleged conspiracy.

58.

Various persons or firms not named as Defendants participated as co-conspirators

in the alleged violations, performed acts, and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy,

and manufactured, sold, and distributed CRT Products to customers in the United States. These

co-conspirators include, but are not limited to: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Orion Electronic

Co., Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd., Daewoo-Orion Société Anonyme, PT.MT Picture Display

Indonesia, P.T. Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia (“TEDI”), and Toshiba Display Devices

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 17

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 18 of 49

(Thailand) Co., Ltd. Plaintiff reserves the right to name some or all of these and other co-

conspirators as Defendants at a later date.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

59.

Plaintiff brings this action to obtain injunctive relief and to recover damages,

including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees arising from Defendants’

violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and the antitrust laws of California,

Washington, Arizona, Florida, and Illinois.

60.

This action arises under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15

and 26, for violations of the antitrust laws of the United States, including Section 1 of the

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is founded on those sections and on

28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides this Court with original jurisdiction over actions arising under

the laws of the United States, and 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which provides this Court with original

jurisdiction over any action arising under federal laws regulating commerce or protecting

commerce against restraints and monopolies. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

61.

Venue is proper pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and 28

U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in

this district and a substantial portion of affected interstate commerce was carried out in this

district.

62.

Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of their

nationwide contacts and other activities, as well as their contacts with the State of Washington.

63.

Related cases are pending in MDL No. 1917 in the Northern District of

California, and this matter should be consolidated there for pretrial purposes but returned to this

district for trial.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 18

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 19 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

A.

CRT Technology

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

64.

A CRT has three components: (a) one or more electron guns, each of which is a

series of metallic structures used to generate a beam of electrons; (b) a magnetic or other

deflection system used to aim the electron beam; and (c) a phosphor-coated glass faceplate that

phosphoresces when struck by an electron beam, thereby producing a viewable image. A

faceplate coated with one color of phosphor produces a monochromatic image, while a faceplate

coated with multiple colors of phosphor produces a polychromatic image. An aperture or

shadow mask—a thin screen of perforated metal—is welded to the faceplate panel and, to

produce a color image, is coated and rinsed multiple times, leaving a surface of thousands of

narrow lines of red, green, blue, and black.

65.

CRT technology was first developed more than a century ago. The first

commercially practical CRT television was made in 1931. However, it was not until RCA

Corporation introduced the product at the 1939 World’s Fair that it became widely available to

consumers. After that, CRTs became the heart of most display products, including televisions,

computer monitors, oscilloscopes, air traffic control monitors, and ATMs.

66.

The quality of a CRT itself determines the quality of the CRT display. No

external control or feature can make up for a poor quality tube. In this regard, the CRT defines

the whole CRT product so that the product is often simply referred to as “the CRT.”

67.

Although there have been refinements, such as the development of thinner CRTs

and CRTs with a flat screen, the CRT technology used today is similar to that RCA unveiled in

1939.

68.

CRTs can be subdivided into CDTs and CPTs. As noted above, CPTs are used

primarily in televisions and related devices and CDTs are primarily used in computer monitors

and similar devices. The primary difference is that CDTs typically yield a higher resolution

image requiring more pixels than do CPTs.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – 19

29040-0244/LEGAL22131652.4



Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Phone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000



Case 2:11-cv-01909-RSM Document 1 Filed 11/14/11 Page 20 of 49

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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

69.

CRTs have no independent utility, and have value only as components of other

products, such as TVs and computer monitors. The demand for CRTs thus directly derives from

the demand for such products. The market for CRTs and the market for the products into which

they are placed are inextricably intertwined because the CRT market exists to serve the CRT

Products markets. The markets for CRTs and CRT Products are effectively inseparable.

Defendants are well aware of this intimate relationship.

70.

Once a CRT leaves its place of manufacture, it remains essentially unchanged as

it moves through the distribution system. CRTs are identifiable, discrete physical objects that do

not change form or become an indistinguishable part of a CRT Product. Thus, CRTs follow a

physical chain from Defendants through manufacturers of CRT Products sold to Plaintiff.

71.

Throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants controlled the market for CRTs.

Consequently, during the Relevant Period, non-defendant original equipment manufacturers

(“OEMs”) had no choice but t