This post provides a brief update on the iiyama cartel damages
claims, which have in part been defeated on a summary judgment
basis, with permission to amend being granted in relation a second
In addition to its claim against the producers of CRT and CRT
glass, iiyama had also brought a €160 million claim at the end
of 2014 in respect of damage suffered as a result of the Liquid
Crystal Display ("LCD") cartel, which was the subject of
a European Commission decision in 2010. LCD panels are used in
iiyama's televisions and computer monitors but the cartel arose
in Asia and iiyama had not purchased the LCD panels directly in the
EEA. Samsung and LG applied to strike out the claim on the grounds
that it fell outside the jurisdiction of European competition law.
Following the finding of the High Court in the CRT strike out
hearing, Mr Justice Morgan again made clear that iiyama were
precluded from arguing that sales by the cartelists outside of the
EU amounted to an infringement of, or an implementation of the
cartel within the territorial scope of Article 101. However, in
contrast to the CRT case, the court declined to dismiss the claim
in its entirety, stating that the issues which arose in the hearing
were not suitable for summary disposal.
Instead, the judge allowed iiyama to amend their pleading. The
claimants' saving grace was a paragraph in their draft amended
pleading which stated that if the LCD cartel had not been
implemented in the EEA, LCD products would have been available at a
non-cartelised price which purchasers could and would have bought.
The court acknowledged that there was "not much evidence"
to support this contention but considered it to be a pleadable
Iiyama were again criticised for the handing of their claim,
with Mr Justice Morgan stating that the pleadings left "a
great deal to be desired". Iiyama has been invited to produce
clearer pleadings which take into account the territorial limits of
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) recently announced that the director of an online poster supplier had become the first UK director to be disqualified for a corporate competition law offence.
A recent case found that a private equity firm was liable for its portfolio company's antitrust violations. This client alert explains that private equity firms, when selecting potential investments...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).