Current Cases

Proposed Class:
Generally, you may be included in one or more of the Settlement Classes if, at anytime from 1990 to 2019, you: (1) bought or leased a qualifying new vehicle in the U.S. (not for resale), or (2) paid to replace one or more of the qualifying vehicle parts (not for resale).

In general, qualifying vehicles include four-wheeled passenger automobiles, cars, light trucks, pickup trucks, crossovers, vans, mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles.

Eligible States:
If during the relevant time periods listed above, you purchased or leased a vehicle or purchased a replacement part while (1) residing or (2) as to businesses, having the principal place of business located, in the District of Columbia or the states listed below will be entitled to share in the monetary recovery.

Those eligible states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$1.2 Billion

Filing Deadline:
December 31, 2019

Background:
The lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit agreed to unlawfully raise the price of certain vehicle component parts. As a result, consumers and businesses who purchased or leased qualifying new vehicles (not for resale) containing those parts or who indirectly purchased qualifying replacement parts (not for resale) from the Defendants may have paid more than they should have. Although the Settling Defendants have agreed to settle, they do not agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet decided who is right.

Eligible Parts for Automotive Parts Indirect Settlement:
• Air Conditioning Systems are systems that cool the interior environment of a vehicle and are part of a vehicle’s thermal system. Air Conditioning Systems, whether sold together or separately, include one or more of the following: automotive compressors, condensers, HVAC units (typically consisting of a blower motor, actuators, flaps, evaporator, heater core, and filter embedded in a plastic housing), control panels, sensors, and associated hoses and pipes.
• Air Flow Meters are used to measure the volume of air flowing into motor vehicle engines.
• Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are “wideband” oxygen sensors that enable more precise control of the air-to-fuel ratio injected into the engine. Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are a type of Oxygen Sensor.
• Alternators are electromechanical devices that generate an electric current while vehicle engines are in operation.
• Anti-Vibration Rubber Parts are comprised primarily of rubber and metal and are installed in suspension systems and engine mounts, as well as other parts of a vehicle, to reduce engine and road vibration.
• Automatic Transmission Fluid Warmers are automatic transmission fluid warmer or cooler devices located in the engine compartment of a vehicle that moderate the temperature of the automatic transmission fluid.
• Automotive Bearings are devices in a vehicle used to position, hold, and guide moving parts, as well as to reduce friction between moving and fixed parts. Automotive Bearings are located throughout a vehicle. Automotive Bearings include the following devices used in vehicles: ball bearings, tapered roller bearings, roller bearings, mounted bearings, and parts and components for ball and roller bearings.
• Automotive Hoses are flexible tubes used to convey liquid and air in vehicles. Automotive Hoses include low-pressure rubber hoses used in automobile engine compartments and plastic and resin tubes used in vehicle engine compartments and fuel tank modules.
• Automotive Wire Harness Systems are the electrical distribution systems used to direct and control electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in vehicles. Automotive Wire Harness Systems include the following parts: automotive wire harnesses, automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, power distributors, high voltage wiring, and speed sensor wire assemblies.
• Ceramic Substrates are uncoated ceramic monoliths with fine honeycomb structures that, after coating with a mix of metal and other chemicals, are incorporated into automotive catalytic converters.
• Electric Powered Steering Assemblies provide electronic power to assist the driver to more easily steer the vehicle. Electric Powered Steering Assemblies link the steering wheel to the tires. Electric Powered Steering Assemblies include Pinion-Assist Type Electric Powered Steering Assemblies as well as all component parts of the assemblies, including the steering column, intermediate shaft, electronic control unit, and electric power steering motors (but not the steering wheel or tires).
• Electronic Throttle Bodies control the amount of air flowing into a motor vehicle’s engine.
• Fan Motors are small electric motors used to turn radiator cooling fans.
• Fuel Injection Systems admit fuel or a fuel/air mixture into vehicle engine cylinders. Fuel Injection Systems can also be sold as part of a broader system, such as an engine management system, or as separate components. Fuel Injection Systems include one or more of the following parts: injectors; high pressure pumps; rail assemblies; feed lines; engine electronic control units; fuel pumps and fuel pump modules; manifold absolute pressure sensors; pressure regulators; pulsation dampers; purge control valves; air flow meters; and electronic throttle bodies.
• Fuel Senders are devices located inside the fuel tank of vehicles that measure the amount of fuel in the tank.
• Heater Control Panels are either mechanical or electrical devices that control the temperature of the interior environment of a vehicle. Heater Control Panels can be either manual (referred to as low-grade) or automatic (referred to as high-grade) and are located in the center console, back seat, or rear cabin of an automobile.
• High Intensity Discharge Ballasts are electrical devices that limit the amount of electrical current flowing to a High Intensity Discharge Ballast headlamp.
• Ignition Coils release electric energy to ignite the fuel/air mixture in cylinders.
• Instrument Panel Clusters are the mounted instruments and gauges housed in front of the driver of a vehicle. Instrument Panel Clusters are also known as meters.
• Inverters convert direct current electricity to alternating current electricity.
• Motor Generators are electric motors used to power electric drive systems that can also capture and regenerate energy.
• Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are comprised of the parts in an automotive vehicle that protect drivers and passengers from bodily harm. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems include one or more of the following: seat belts, air bags, steering wheels or steering systems, and safety electronic systems.
• Oil Coolers are devices located in the engine compartment of a vehicle that remove surplus heat from the engine oil.
• Power Window Motors are small electric motors used to raise and lower vehicle windows.
• Power Window Switches are automobile switches that raise or lower a vehicle’s electric windows.
• Radiators are heat exchangers or other devices that help prevent vehicle engines from overheating or otherwise regulate the temperature of the engine compartment of a vehicle and the fluids passing through it, including all devices physically attached to and sold as part of a radiator.
• Spark Plugs are located in the engine and deliver high electric voltage from the ignition system to the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine.
• Standard Oxygen Sensors are located in the exhaust system and measure the amount of oxygen in the exhaust.
• Starters are small electronic motors used in starting internal combustion engines.
• Steering Angle Sensors detect the angle of the vehicle’s direction and send signals to a vehicle computer, which in turn controls the vehicle stability during turns. Steering Angle Sensors are installed on the steering column of a vehicle and may be connected to part of a combination switch.
• Switches include one or more of the following: steering wheel switch (installed in the steering wheel), used to control functions within the vehicle; turn switch (installed behind the steering wheel), used to signal a left or right turn and control hi/lo beam selection; wiper switch (installed behind the steering wheel), used to activate the vehicle’s windshield wipers; combination switch, a combination of the turn and wiper switches as one unit, sold together as a pair; and door courtesy switch (installed in the door frame), which activates the light inside the vehicle when the door opens.
• Valve Timing Control Devices (also called Variable Timing Devices and/or Variable Timing Control Devices), control the timing of engine valve operation and include the Variable Timing Control actuator or solenoid valve. Some valve timing control devices may also contain an oil control valve.
• Windshield Washer Systems include one or more of the following: pump, hoses, nozzle, and tank necessary to deliver washer fluid to vehicle windows.
• Windshield Wiper Systems include one or more of the following: motor, linkage, arm, and blade necessary to clear water or snow from vehicle windows.

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. (the “Included States”).

Partial Settlement Amount Phase 4:
Approximately $103,520,160

Filing Deadline Phase 4:
April 17, 2020

If you Purchased a Vehicle containing, or purchased one or more of the following parts:

Automotive Parts include any or all of the following:

Background:
The separate lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit conspired to fix, maintain, and artificially raise the price of component parts at issue in that lawsuit. The lawsuits claim that, as a result of the relevant Defendants’ conduct, Dealers paid more than they should have for the parts at issue in that lawsuit and paid more for the vehicles in which those parts are contained. The lawsuits also allege that Dealers were unable to pass on all of these increased costs to their customers. These cases are proceeding as class actions for monetary recovery for Dealers in the District of Columbia and one or more of the following states listed above. The lawsuits also seek nationwide injunctive relief.

Self-Funded Accounts encompass any account, employer, health benefit plan, ERISA plan, non-ERISA plan, or group, including all sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries, and Members thereof, that purchased, were covered by, participated in, or were enrolled in a Self-Funded Health Benefit Plan during the Self-Funded Settlement Class Period. A Self-Funded Health Benefit Plan is any Commercial Health Benefit Product other than Commercial Health Insurance, including administrative services only (“ASO”) contracts or accounts, administrative services contracts or accounts “ASC”), and jointly administered administrative services contracts or accounts (“JAA”).

For associational entities (e.g., trade associations, unions, etc.), the Self-Funded Account includes any member entity which was covered by, enrolled in, or included in the associational entity’s Blue- Branded Commercial Health Benefit Product. A Self-Funded Account that purchased a Blue-Branded Self-Funded Health Benefit Plan and Blue-Branded stop-loss coverage remains a Self-Funded Account.

Excluded from the Damages Class are: Government Accounts;Medicare and Medicaid Accounts;Settling Defendants themselves, and any parent or subsidiary of any Settling Defendant (and their covered or enrolled employees); Individuals or entities that file an exclusion or opt out from the Settlement; and The judge presiding over this matter, and any members of his judicial staff, to the extent such staff were covered by a Commercial Health Benefit Product not purchased by a Government Account during the Settlement Class Period.

Defendants:
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”) and Settling Individual Blue Plans

Settlement Amount:
$2.67 Billion

Filing Deadline:
To Be Determined

Background:
Preliminary approval of the settlement agreement was granted on November 30, 2020. The hearing for final approval is scheduled to occur on October 20, 2021.The Plaintiffs allege that Settling Defendants violated antitrust laws by entering into an agreement where the Settling Defendants agreed not to compete with each other in selling health insurance and administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products in the United States and Puerto Rico, as well as agreeing to other means of limiting competition in the market for health insurance and administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products. The settlement includes net proceeds (after covering legal and admin fees) of approximately $1.78 billion for eligible fully insured plans, and approximately $120 million for self-funded groups.

Settlement Amount:
$5.54 Billion

Filing Deadline:
May 31, 2024

Background:
Plaintiffs allege that defendants Visa, MasterCard and their member banks have engaged in anticompetitive practices, including collusion, that artificially inflated the interchange fee that all merchants paid (and continue to pay) to accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit and debit cards. It is further alleged that interchange fees, which are neither cost-based nor negotiated between merchants and the banks with whom they deal directly, raise merchant discount fees to supracompetitive levels and have generated enormous profits for the Bank Defendants. Defendants have allegedly colluded, and continue to collude, with respect to interchange fees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, pursuant to three separate conspiracies, those being between and among:

a. The Visa network and its member banks;
b. The MasterCard network and its member banks; and
c. The Visa network, the MasterCard network, and their respective member banks.

Visa, and its respective member banks, including the Bank Defendants, violated the law because they set interchange fees. Mastercard and its respective member banks, including the Bank Defendants, violated the law because they set interchange fees.Visa and its respective member banks, including the Bank Defendants, violated the law because they imposed and enforced rules that limited merchants from steering their customers to other payment methods. Those rules include so-called no-surcharge rules,no-discounting rules, honor-all-cards rules, and certain other rules. Doing so insulated them from competitive pressure to lower the interchange fees. Mastercard and its respective member banks, including the Bank Defendants, violated the law because they imposed and enforced rules that limited merchants from steering their customers to other payment methods. Those rules include so-called no-surcharge rules,no-discounting rules, honor-all-cards rules, and certain other rules. Doing so insulated them from competitive pressure to lower the interchange fees. Visa and Mastercard conspired together about some of the business practices challenged. Visa and its respective member banks continued in those activities despite the fact that Visa changed its corporate structure and became a publicly owned corporation after this case was filed. Mastercard and its respective member banks continued in those activities despite the fact that Mastercard changed its corporate structure and became a publicly owned corporation after this case was filed. The Defendants’ conduct caused the merchants to pay excessive interchange fees for accepting Visa and Mastercard cards. But for Defendants’ conduct there would have been no interchange fee or those fees would have been lower. The Defendants say they have done nothing wrong. They claim their business practices are legal, justified, the result of independent competition and have benefitted merchants and consumers.
Claim forms are available. Class members need not sign up for a third-party service in order to participate in any monetary relief. There is going to be no-cost assistance that will be available from the Class Administrator and Class Counsel during the claim filing period. For additional information you may also visit www.paymentcardsettlement.com the court approved website.

Defendants:
Visa, MasterCard and various member banks:

“Visa Defendants”: Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service Association, and Visa Inc.;
“MasterCard Defendants”: MasterCard International Incorporated and MasterCard Incorporated; and
“Bank Defendants”: Bank of America, N.A.; BA Merchant Services LLC (formerly known as National Processing, Inc.); Bank of America Corporation; MBNA America Bank, N.A.; Barclays Bank plc; Barclays Bank Delaware; Barclays Financial Corp.; Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Capital One F.S.B.; Capital One Financial Corporation; Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Bank One Corporation; Bank One Delaware, N.A.; Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.; Citibank N.A.; Citigroup Inc.; Citicorp; Fifth Third Bancorp; First National Bank of Omaha; HSBC Finance Corporation; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; HSBC North America Holdings Inc.; HSBC Holdings plc; HSBC Bank plc; National City Corporation; National City Bank of Kentucky; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; SunTrust Bank; Texas Independent Bancshares, Inc.; Wachovia Bank, N.A.; Wachovia Corporation; Washington Mutual, Inc.; Washington Mutual Bank; Providian National Bank (also known as Washington Mutual Card Services, Inc.); Providian Financial Corporation; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Company.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$29,500,000

Filing Deadline:
To be determined

Defendants:
Reynolds ( The Reynold Company )
CDK ( CDK Global, LLC or CDK Global, Inc.)
CVR (Computerized Vehicle Registration, Inc.)

What are Dealer Management Systems (DMS):
A DMS is the software and hardware system that manages numerous functions of a motor vehicle dealership and that the dealership uses to enter data concerning inventory, buyers, financing, etc. Dealerships use the systems to manage their accounting, insurance, payroll and inventory.

Background:
The multidistrict litigation stems from a 2015 deal between CDK and Reynolds to limit third-parties from accessing its computerized dealer management systems, also known as DMS. The lawsuit stem from allegations the two dealership management system (DMS) giants conspired to block MVSC’s access to data on the DMS in an attempt to force it from the market giving competitor CVR a decided advantage. MVSC also alleges Reynolds and CDK used an “unlawful” agreement in 2015 to force out companies providing independent data integration services to vendors and dealers eliminating another channel for MVSC to access data necessary to its business. MVSC also claims the two tech firms intimidated dealers in Illinois and California, it’s two primary markets, into using CVR.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$15 million Southwest Airlines
$45 million American Airlines

Defendants:
American Airlines
Delta Air Lines
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines

Filing Deadline:
To be determined

Background:
Plaintiffs allege that since 2008 the four largest air carriers, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines, which control approximately 80 percent of domestic air passenger seats, have taken steps to limit capacity with the goal of keeping air fares artificially high. It is alleged this coordination w as achieved in part through the common ownership of these airlines by a handful of large institutional investors. Although the Settling Defendants have agreed to settle, they do not agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any money or benefits to Plaintiff s. The Court has not yet decided who is right.

Class Definition:
You are included in one or more of the Settlement Classes if you bought a ticket for air travel from one of the Defendants or Co-Conspirators; the ticket included at least one flight segment between the U.S. and Asia or the U.S. and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand or the Pacific Islands); your purchase was made between January 1, 2000 and the Effective Date*, and you were not reimbursed for your purchase by someone else.

Defendants and Co-Conspirators are:

Partial Settlement Amount:
$58,000,000 Nippon Settlement

Filing Deadline:
September 19, 2015
December 31, 2018
February 20, 2020 ( Nippon and Japan Airlines), past deadline for other settlements

Background:
The lawsuits claim that thirteen Defendants and their alleged co-conspirators agreed to fix the prices of airline tickets for travel between the United States and Asia/Oceania. As a result, ticket purchasers may have paid more than was necessary. The Defendant airlines deny they did anything wrong and the Defendants who have agreed to settle the case have done so with no admission of liability. One of the Defendants—All Nippon Airways Company, Limited—has pled guilty to fixing the prices of certain discounted tickets for transpacific air transportation sold in the United States from at least as early as April 1, 2000 until at least April 1, 2004.

* The Effective Date for the Qantas, Cathay Pacific Airways, and Thai Airways Settlements is June 15, 2015. The JAL, Air France, Singapore Airlines, Vietnam Airlines, and Malaysian Air Settlements are currently on appeal.

Settlement Amounts:
BMW: $ 131 million
Honda, Acura: $ 605 million
Mazda: $ 75.8 million
Ford: $299.1 million
Nissan, Infiniti: $ 97.7 million
Subaru, Saab: $ 68.2 million
Toyota, Lexus, Scion: $ 278.5 million

Filing Deadlines:
BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Saab, Lexus, Scion, and Toyota – July 30, 2019
Honda, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti – July 31, 2019
Ford – To be Determined

Background:
A $131 million settlement has been proposed with Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW AG”), BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW NA”), and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (“BMW MC”) (collectively, “BMW”). The Settlement resolves claims that BMW manufactured, distributed, or sold certain vehicles containing allegedly defective inflators manufactured by Takata Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc. that allegedly could, upon deployment, rupture and expel debris or shrapnel into the occupant compartment or otherwise affect the airbag’s deployment, and that the Plaintiffs sustained economic losses as a result thereof. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 9, 2017 and issued the preliminary approval order that was docketed on June 12, 2017.

A $605 million settlement has been proposed with Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Honda North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda R&D Co., Ltd., Honda R&D Americas, Inc., Honda Engineering North America, Inc., Honda of America Mfg., Inc., and any and all other Honda affiliates (collectively, “Honda”). The settlement resolves claims that Honda manufactured, distributed, or sold certain vehicles containing allegedly defective inflators manufactured by Takata Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc. that allegedly could, upon deployment, rupture and expel debris or shrapnel at the driver or passenger or otherwise affect the airbag’s deployment, and that the Plaintiffs sustained economic losses as a result thereof. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on September 19, 2017.

Partial Settlement Amounts:
$139,450,000

Filing Deadline:
December 10, 2015

Defendants:

Cathode Ray Tube Products:
Cathode Ray Tubes of any type (e.g. color display tubes, color picture tubes and monochrome display tubes) and finished products which contain Cathode Ray Tubes, such as Televisions and Computer Monitors.

Background:
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of CRTs and the CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and certain finished products containing CRTs. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of, CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$563,000,000

Filing Deadline:
December 7, 2015

Who is an “Indirect” Purchaser?
An “Indirect” purchaser of a CRT Product is someone who did not buy the CRT Product directly from any Defendants below.

Defendants:

What are CRT Products?
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Products include Cathode Ray Tubes and finished products that contain a Cathode Ray Tube, such as Televisions and Computer Monitors. “Cathode Ray Tube” (CRT) is “a vacuum tube containing one or more electron guns (a source of electrons or electron emitter) and a fluorescent screen used to view images.” By contrast, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), plasma and flat panel displays are NOT CRTs.

How do I know if I am part of the Litigated Class?

You are a member of the Litigated Class if you meet the requirements set out below:

(A) All persons or entities in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin, who or which, as residents of those states, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, any CRT Product made by the Defendants or their co-conspirators.

(B) All persons or entities in the District of Columbia, who or which, as residents of the District of Columbia, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, from March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007, any CRT Product made by the Defendants or their co-conspirators.

(C) All persons or entities in Hawaii who or which, as residents of Hawaii, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, from June 25, 2002 through November 25, 2007, any CRT Product made by the Defendants or their co-conspirators.

(D) All persons or entities in Nebraska who or which, as residents of Nebraska, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, from July 20, 2002 through November 25, 2007, any CRT Product made by theDefendants or their co-conspirators.

(E) All persons or entities in Nevada who or which, as residents of Nevada, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, from February 4, 1999 through November 25, 2007, any CRT Product made by the Defendants or their co-conspirators.

Background:
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of CRTs and the CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and certain finished products containing CRTs. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of, CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$53,000,000

Defendants:

Filing Deadline:
August 1, 2014

Background:
Defendants, some of the nation’s largest egg producers, including Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (“Cal-Maine”) and Sparboe Farms, Inc. (“Sparboe”), allegedly conspired to reduce egg output and thus fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of eggs and egg products in the United States. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs allegedly paid higher prices as a result of this conspiracy, and they now seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The filing deadline for the Land O’Lakes, Moark, and Norco settlement was January 7, 2011.

• All dairy farmers (individuals or entities) who produced and pooled raw Grade A milk in Order 1 during any time from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2014, who are members of DFA or otherwise sell milk through DMS.
Non-DFA/DMS Member Subclass

• All dairy farmers (individuals or entities), who produced and pooled raw Grade A milk in Order 1 during any time from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2014, and who are not members of DFA and do not sell milk through DMS.

Settlement Amount:
$50,000,000

Defendants:
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. ( “DFA”)
Dairy Marketing Services, LLC (“DMS”)

Background:
The lawsuit claims that Defendants (including previous Defendant Dean Foods and other co-conspirators) unlawfully conspired to monopolize and to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale, and purchase of raw Grade A milk in the Northeast and thereby suppressed prices lower than they would have been in a competitive market. This lawsuit seeks to stop Defendants from engaging in the alleged unlawful conduct, to prohibit practices found to be unlawful, and to recover damages for the illegally suppressed prices for raw Grade A milk. The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong or that they acted in a manner that harmed dairy farmers. There has not yet been a determination as to whether Plaintiffs’ claims are correct or Defendants have done anything wrong.

Federal Milk Market Order 1 Farm Location Information
The Federal Milk Market Order 1 includes all of the following States in their entirety: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and District of Columbia

The Federal Milk Market Order 1 also includes certain parts of the following States: Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

Filing Deadline:
May 30, 2015

Partial Settlement Amount:
$37,900,000

Filing Deadline:
June 22, 2015

Defendants:

Background:
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and Co-Conspirators engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of ODDs. Plaintiffs further claim that direct purchasers from the Defendants of ODD Devices manufactured by a Defendant may recover for the effect that the alleged ODD conspiracy had on the prices of ODDs and ODD Devices. Plaintiffs allege that, as result of the unlawful conspiracy involving ODDs, they and other direct purchasers paid more for ODDs and ODD Devices than they would have absent the conspiracy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ claims.

What are Optical Disk Drives and Optical Disk Drive Products?
For the purposes of the Settlement, “Optical Disk Drives” or “ODDs” are defined to mean any device which reads and/or writes data from and to an optical disk, including but not limited to, CD-ROMS, CD- recordable/rewritable, DVD-ROM, DVD-recordable/rewritable, Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray recordable/rewritable, HD-DVD, Super Multi-Drives and other combination drives, and optical disk drives designed to be attached externally to computers or other devices. “Optical Disk Drive Devices” or “ODD Devices” shall mean devices incorporating ODDs including but not limited to desktop computers, mobile/laptop computers, videogame consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders, and Blu-Ray disc players/recorders.

You could be eligible for a refund if between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008, you purchased (for their own use and not for resale) one or more of the following products manufactured by one or more of the defendants or their alleged coconspirators in an eligible state listed below:

• A computer with an internal optical disk drive;
• A stand-alone optical disk drive designed for internal use in computers; or
• An optical disk drive designed to be attached externally to a computer.

Eligible States:
Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin.

Settlement Amount:
$175,000,000

Filing Deadline:
October 30, 2017

Background:
This antitrust class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs alleging a conspiracy involving ODD suppliers to fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of ODDs at artificially high levels in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. ODD refers to a DVD-RW, DVD-ROM, or COMBO drive manufactured by one or more Defendants or their asserted conspirators. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of individuals and businesses who purchased a new computer with an internal ODD, a stand-alone ODD designed for internal use in a computer, or an ODD designed to be attached externally to a computer as residents of the eligible states listed above between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008 for their own use and not for resale. Because the class here is end-users who did not resell their products, they are known as “indirect purchasers.” The defendants deny they did anything wrong. Notwithstanding foregoing, a computer identified does not include a Panasonic-branded computer (because such computers are not part of the litigation or any of the settlements) and purchases of ODDs identified do not include purchases made directly from an ODD manufacturer.

NOTE: Purchases of Panasonic-brand computers are not covered by this class action settlement.

Partial Settlement Amount:
1st Round: $105,611,865
2nd Round: $197,600,000
3rd Round: $53,550,000

What are Freight Forwarding Services?
“Freight Forwarding Services” is defined as freight forwarding, transportation, or logistics services for shipments, and includes services relating to the organization or transportation of items via air, ocean, rail, and road, both nationally and internationally, and related activities such as customs clearance, warehousing, and ground services.

Filing Deadline:
1st Round: August 24, 2015
2nd Round: March 31, 2016
3rd Round: April 3, 2017

Background:
Freight forwarding companies (“Defendants”) around the world were sued by a group of businesses (“Plaintiffs”) who claim that the companies conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the prices for freight forwarding services during certain time periods. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants’ conspiracies were worldwide, including on shipping routes between the United States and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants agreed to fix various charges and surcharges associated with providing freight forwarding services. Some of the Defendants the Plaintiffs sued have agreed to Settlements in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is continuing against the rest of the Defendants, who are called Non-Settling Defendants. The Settling Defendants vigorously deny they have done anything wrong. They have asserted a number of defenses but have agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of trial.

Defendants:

Proposed Class:
Generally, you are included if, at any time between 1999 and 2016 for Vehicle Wire Harness Systems or between 2003 and 2015 for Occupant Safety Systems, you were a Truck and Equipment Dealer of heavy-duty (Class 8) or medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks, buses,commercial vehicles in the included states listed below (excluding automobiles, light trucks, vans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, pickup trucks, and/or similar vehicles sold by automobile
dealers), all-terrain vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment,railway vehicles, materials-handling vehicles, and other similar vehicles (“Trucks and/or Equipment”) that: (a) purchased Trucks and/or Equipment containing a Component Part, or (b) indirectly purchased a Component Part as a replacement part. “Indirectly” means you bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other than the manufacturer of the part.

The term “Truck and Equipment Dealer” or “Truck and Equipment Dealership” means an entity or person authorized to engage in the business of selling or dealing in Trucks and/or Equipment at retail in the United States.

Inlcuded States:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. (the “Included States”).

Partial Settlement Amount:
$5.1 million

Filing Deadline:
To be determined

Background:
The lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit agreed to unlawfully raise the price of certain motor vehicle component parts. As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who purchased for resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as replacement parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant may have paid more than they should have. Although the Settling Defendants have agreed to settle, the Settling Defendants do not agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any money or benefits to Plaintiffs. The Court has not yet decided who is right.

While the Settling Defendants believe that they are not liable for the claims asserted, that no damages were sustained by any dealers and that Settling Defendants have meritorious defenses, they have nevertheless agreed to enter into the Settlement Agreements to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, and to obtain the releases, orders, and judgment contemplated by the Settlement Agreements, and to put to rest with finality all claims that have been or could have been asserted against the Releasees with respect to the Component Parts.

Eligible Products below, but are not limited to:
• notebook computers
• cellular (mobile) phones
• digital cameras
• camcorders
• power tools

*Please note also included are direct purchases of Lithium Ion Batteries and Lithium Ion Cells

Partial Settlement Amount:
$68,850,000

Filing Deadline:
April 26, 2018

Defendants:

Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and Li-Ion Products:
For the purposes of the Settlement:
• “Lithium Ion Battery Cell(s)” or “Li-Ion Cells” means the main components of Lithium Ion Batteries. A cell includes the cathode, anode, and electrolyte.
• “Lithium Ion Battery” or “Li-Ion Battery” means a cylindrical, prismatic or polymer battery that is rechargeable and uses lithium ion technology.
• “Lithium Ion Battery Products” or “Li-Ion Products” means products manufactured, marketed and/or sold by Defendants, their divisions, subsidiaries or Affiliates, or their alleged co-conspirators that contain one or more Lithium Ion Battery Cells manufactured by Defendants or their alleged co-conspirators. Lithium Ion Battery Products include, but are not limited to, notebook computers, cellular (mobile) phones, digital cameras, camcorders and power tools.

Background:
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of Li-Ion Cells for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of Li-Ion Batteries and Li-Ion Products. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by agreeing to fix prices and restrict output of Li-Ion Cells by, among other things, face-to-face meetings and other communications, customer allocation, and the use of trade associations. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Court has not decided who is right.

“Indirectly” means the product was purchased from someone other than the manufacturer, such as a distributor or retail store.

Eligible Products below, but are not limited to:

• notebook/laptop computers
• tablets or netbooks
• cellular (mobile) phones, smartphones
• digital cameras
• camcorders
• digital video cameras
• digital audio players
• power tools
• Stand-alone Li-Ion Battery

Partial Settlement Amount:
$64,450,000

Filing Deadline:
July 19, 2018

Li-Ion Cells, Li-Ion Batteries, and Li-Ion Products:
For purposes of the Settlement:

•“Lithium Ion Battery Cell(s)” or “Li-Ion Cells” means cylindrical, prismatic, or polymer cell used for the storage of power that is rechargeable and uses lithium ion technology.
•“Lithium Ion Battery” or “Li-Ion Battery” means Lithium Ion Battery Cell or Lithium Ion Battery Pack.
•“Lithium Ion Battery Pack” means Lithium Ion Battery Cells that have been assembled into a pack, regardless of the number of Lithium Ion Cells contained in such packs.
•“Lithium Ion Battery Products” or “Li-Ion Products” means products manufactured, marketed, and/or sold by Defendants, their divisions, subsidiaries, or Affiliates, or their alleged co-conspirators that contain one or more Lithium Ion Battery Cells manufactured by Defendants or their alleged co-conspirators. Lithium Ion Battery Products include, but are not limited to, laptop computers, notebook computers, netbook computers, tablet computers, mobile phones, smart phones, cameras, camcorders, digital video cameras, digital audio players, and power tools.

Background:
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of Li-Ion Cells for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to indirect purchasers of Li-Ion Batteries and Li-Ion Products. The complaint describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. and state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws by agreeing to fix prices and restrict output of Li-Ion Cells by, among other things, face-to-face meetings and other communications, customer allocation, and the use of trade associations. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Court has not decided who is right.

Settlement Amount:
$36,000,000

Filing Deadline:
July 12, 2018

What are CRT Products?:
A CRT is a piece of technology used as displays (screens) in televisions and computer monitors. Before LCD, Plasma and LED display technologies became popular, CRTs were the main technology used in these devices.Systems, Inc. (“Toshiba”)

Who is an “Indirect” Purchaser?:
An “Indirect” purchaser of a CRT Product is someone who did not buy the CRT Product directly from any Defendant.

Who are the Defendants?:
The Defendants are manufacturers and/or suppliers of CRTs

How do I know if I may recover money in the Illinois CRT Settlement?
If you purchased one or more CRT television(s) or monitor(s) between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007 while residing in Illinois (or, if you are a business, while you were headquartered or incorporated in Illinois), for your own use and not for resale
You may not be eligible if:
• The TV(s) or monitor(s) you purchased was (were) purchased outside Illinois
• You are an individual who resided outside Illinois when you purchased your CRT television or monitor
• You are a business that was incorporated and headquartered outside Illinois when you purchased your CRT television or monitor
• You are an Illinois county, municipality, township or other political subdivision

Background:
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of CRTs resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing CRTs. The Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations or that indirect purchasers suffered any overcharge. The Court has not yet decided who is right.