Current Cases

Proposed Class:
All person and entities (excluding government entities) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services from any of the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates in the United States OR outside the United States but for shipments within, to, or from the United States from January 1, 2001 through September 14, 2012.

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:

ABX Logistics Worldwide NV/SA
Agility Logistics Corporation
Air Express International USA, Inc.
Airborne Express
Baltrans Logistics, Inc.
BAX Global, Inc.
Dachser Intelligent Logistics
Dachser Transport of America, Inc.
Danzas Corporation, d/b/a DHL Global Forwarding
Danzas Maruzen
DB Schenker
Deutsche Bahn AG
Deutsche Post AG
DFDS
DHL Express (U.S.A.), Inc.
DHL Global Forwarding Japan K.K.
DHL Japan, Inc.
DSV A/S
DSV Air & Sea Ltd.
DSV Solutions Holding A/S
EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP
EGL, Inc.
Emery
Exel Global Logistics, Inc.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
Geodis S.A.
Geodis Wilson USA, Inc.
Geo-Logistics Corporation
Geologistics International Management (Bermuda) Ltd.
Hankyu Hanshin Express Co. Ltd.,
Hankyu Hanshin Express Holdings Corporation
Hankyu Travel International
Hanshin Air Cargo Co., Ltd.,
Hanshin Air Cargo U.S.A., Inc.
Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, Inc.
Japan Aircargo Forwarders Association
Jet Speed Air Cargo Forwarders (U.S.A.), Inc.
Jet Speed Logistics (U.S.A.), LLC
Jet Speed Logistics, Ltd.
“K” Line Logistics (U.S.A.), Inc.
“K” Line Logistics, Ltd.
Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc.
Kintetsu World Express, Inc.
Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.
Kühne + Nagel International AG
Menlo Worldwide
MOL Logistics (Japan) Co., Ltd.
MOL Logistics (U.S.A.), Inc.
Morrison Express Corporation (U.S.A.)
Morrison Express Logistics PTE Ltd.
Nippon Express Co., Ltd.
Nippon Express U.S.A., Inc.
Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co., Ltd.
Nissin Corporation
Nissin International Transport U.S.A., Inc.
Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd.
Panalpina, Inc.
SAIMA
Schenker AG
Schenker, Inc.
SDV Logistique Internationale
Shanghai International Freight Forwarders Association
Spedlogswiss, aka The Association Of Swiss Forwarders
Toll Global Forwarding (U.S.A.), Inc.
United Aircargo Consolidators, Inc.
United Parcel Service, Inc.
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
UTi Worldwide Inc.
Vantec Corporation
Vantec World Transport (U.S.A.), Inc.
Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co.
Yamato Transport U.S.A., Inc.
Yusen Air & Sea Service (U.S.A.), Inc.
Yusen Air & Sea Service Co., Ltd.

Proposed Class:
All persons, businesses, and other entities that have accepted Visa-Branded Cards and/or MasterCard-Branded Cards in the United States at any time between January 1, 2004 and November 28, 2012. This Class does not include the named Defendants, their directors, officers, or members of their families, or their co-conspirators, or the United States Government.

Settlement Amount:
Visa, MasterCard and the member banks agreed to a $5.7 Billion dollar settlement ending class allegations that they artificially inflated the prices of interchange fees paid by merchants. The Fairness Hearing was held on September 12, 2013. The court granted final approval on December 13, 2013. The Court approved settlement for Class members was however, overturned in Appeals court on or after June 30, 2016. The Appellate Court ordered the parties to return to the negotiating table to work towards settlement. This does not impact your claim and entitlement to monetary compensation under any agreement reached in this litigation. It may in fact, increase the monetary award and your share of the proceeds from the settlement.

Filing Deadline:
To be determined

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, MasterCard and the member banks agreed to a $5.7 Billion settlement ending class allegations that they artificially inflated the prices of interchange fees paid by merchants. The settlement has been finally approved.

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.

* Claim forms are not yet 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.

Proposed Class:
The Settlement Class includes all persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007 the (“Class Period”) directly purchased a Cathode Ray Tube Product in the United States from any Defendant or subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, as opposed to an intermediary (such as a retail store).

Partial Settlement Amounts:
$139,450,000

Filing Deadline:
December 10, 2015

Defendants:

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC)
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.
Daewoo International Corporation
Hitachi, Ltd.
Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.)
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
Hitachi America, Ltd.
Hitachi Asia, Ltd.
Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.
IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd.
Irico Group Corporation
IRICO Group Corporation
Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
LG Electronics, Inc.
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd
LP Displays International, Ltd. f/k/a LG.Philips Displays
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.)
Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.)
MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Philips Electronics North America Corporation
Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.
Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Samsung SDI America, Inc.
Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.
Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.
Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Tatung Company of America, Inc.
Thai CRT Company, Ltd.
Thomson SA (n/k/a Technicolor SA)
Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc.)
Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Displays Americas LLC)
Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC.
Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
Toshiba America, Inc.
Toshiba Corporation
Videocon Industries, Ltd

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.

Proposed Class:
All persons or entities that Indirectly purchased in the U. S., 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.

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:

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC)
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.
Daewoo International Corporation
Hitachi, Ltd.
Hitachi Displays, Ltd.
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
Hitachi America, Ltd.
Hitachi Asia, Ltd.
Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.
IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd.
Irico Group Corporation
IRICO Group Corporation
Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd
LP Displays International, Ltd. f/k/a LG.Philips Displays
Matsushita Electronic Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Philips Electronics North America Corporation
Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.
Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Samsung SDI America, Inc.
Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.
Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.
Samtel Color, Ltd.
SEG Hitachi Color Display Devices, Ltd.
Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Tatung Company of America, Inc.
Thai CRT Company, Ltd.
Thomson SA (n/k/a Technicolor SA)
Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (n/k/a/ Technicolor USA, Inc.)
Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC.
Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
Toshiba America, Inc.
Toshiba Corporation
Toshiba Display (Thailand) Company, Ltd.
Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia
Videocon Industries, Ltd.

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.

Proposed Class:
All persons who purchased Containerboard Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from Februaury 15, 2004 to November 8, 2010. Specifically excluded from this case are the Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir or local government entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$376,400,000 (Packaging Corporation of America)

Defendants:

Packaging Corporation of America
Norampac U.S. Holdings Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Company
Temple-Inland, Inc.
International Paper
Cascades Canada Inc.
Georgia-Pacific LLC
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation

Background:
The plaintiffs brought this action to recover for the injuries sustained as a result of Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which Containerboard products were sold during the Class Period.

Filing Deadline:
February 6, 2018

Proposed Class:
All individuals and entities that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg Products in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through February 28, 2014. Excluded from the Class and SubClasses are Defendants, Other Settling Defendants, and Producers, and the parents, subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendants, Other Settling Defendants, and Producers, all government entities, as well as the Court and staff to whom this case is assigned, and any member of the Court’s or staffs immediate family.

A. Shell Egg SubClass
All individuals and entities that purchased Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through February 28, 2014. Excluded from the subclass are purchases of “specialty” Shell Eggs (certified organic, nutritionally enhanced, cage-free, free-range, and vegetarian-fed types) and purchases of “hatching” Shell Eggs (used by poultry breeders to produce breeder stock or growing stock for laying hens or meat).
B. Egg Products SubClass
All individuals and entities that purchased Egg Products produced from Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through February 28, 2014. Excluded from the subclass are purchases of “specialty” Egg Products (certified organic, nutritionally enhanced, cage-free, free-range, or vegetarian-fed types).

Partial Settlement Amount:
$53,000,000

Defendants:

Cal-Maine Foods Inc.
Daybreak Foods Inc.
Hillandale Farms, Inc.
Hillandale Farms East Inc.
Hillandale-Gettysburg, LP
Hillandale Farms of PA
Land O’Lakes, Inc. (Deadline Passed)
Michael Foods Inc.
Midwest Poultry Services LP
Moark, LLC (Deadline Passed)
National Food Corporation
Norco Ranch Inc. (Deadline Passed)
NuCal Foods Inc.RW Sauder Inc.
Ohio Fresh Eggs LLC
Rose Acre Farms Inc.
Sparboe Farms, Inc.

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.

Proposed Class:
If you are a member of either of the two Subclasses certified by the Court – and have not excluded yourself – then you are a part of the Settlement. The Court has certified two groups or Subclasses:
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, 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

Proposed Class:
All person and entities who, between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2011, directly purchased an
ODD or ODD Device in the United States from any defendant or subsidiary or affiliate thereof.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$37,900,000

Filing Deadline:
June 22, 2015

Defendants:

BenQ America Corporation
BenQ Corporation
Hitachi, Ltd.
Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
LG Electronics Inc.
LG Electronics USA, Inc. Lite-On IT Corp. of Taiwan
NEC Corporation
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Panasonic Corporation
Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp. Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc.
Quanta Storage America, Inc. Quanta Storage, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC
Sony Corporation
Sony Electronics, Inc
Sony NEC Optiarc Inc. Sony Optiarc America Inc. Sony Optiarc Inc.
TEAC America, Inc. TEAC Corporation
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. Toshiba Corporation
Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp.
Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. Korea

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.

Proposed Class:
You are included in the settlements and certified class if you purchased a new computer with an internal ODD, or a stand-alone ODD designed for internal use in a computer, or an ODD designed to be attached externally to a computer for your own use and not for resale between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008 in one or more of the states listed below. Because the class here is end-users who did not resell their products, they are known as “indirect purchasers”, and do not include purchases made directly from an ODD manufacturer.

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.

Proposed Class:
All persons or entities in the eligible states listed below, who indirectly purchased products containing flexible polyurethane foam, not for resale, which were manufactured, produced or supplied by Defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators from January 1, 1999 to August 1, 2015.

• “Products” here defined to include only carpet underlay (also known as carpet padding or carpet cushion), bedding (for example, mattresses, mattress toppers, or pillows), and upholstered furniture products (for example, a sofa with foam cushions).

Eligible States:
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, [the] District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

Settlement Amount:
$151,250,000

Filing Deadline:
February 29, 2016

Defendants:

Carpenter Co.
Domfoam International, Inc.
FFP Holdings LLC (f/k/a Flexible Foam Products, LLC and f/k/a Flexible Foam Products, Inc.)
FXI Holdings, Inc.
Future Foam, Inc.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated

Mohawk Industries, Inc.
Scottdel Inc.
Valle Foam Industries, Inc.
Vitafoam Products Canada Limited
Vitafoam, Inc.
Woodbridge Foam Corporation
Woodbridge Sales & Engineering, Inc.
Woodbridge Foam Fabricating, Inc.

Background:
This case is about whether certain manufacturers of flexible polyurethane foam, which is used in upholstered furniture, carpet underlay (also called carpet padding or carpet cushion), and bedding (for example, mattresses, mattress toppers, or pillows) conspired to raise the prices of flexible polyurethane foam. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ actions violated numerous States’ antitrust and consumer protection laws. By Orders dated April 9, 2014 and April 16, 2014, the Court decided this lawsuit could proceed as a class action on behalf of a “Class”, or group of people and entities, that may include you.

Proposed Class:
Automobile dealerships that indirectly purchased certain component parts (as defined below) and/or vehicles for resale containing these parts on or after January 1, 1998 to August 10, 2016 (“Dealers”) in the District of Columbia or one or more of the following states below:

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:
$58,000,000 (Phase 1)
$124,730,980 (Phase 2)

Filing Deadline:
March 31, 2016 (Phase 1)
April 28, 2017 (Phase 2)

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

Automotive Parts include any or all of the following:

• Air Conditioning Systems
• Air Flow Meters
• Alternators
• Anti-Vibrational Rubber Parts
• Automotive Lamps
• Bearings
• Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products
• Electric Powered Steering Assemblies
• Electronic Throttle Bodies
• Fan Motors
• Fuel Injection Systems
• Fuel Senders
• Heating Control Panels
• High Intensity Discharge Ballasts
• Ignition Coils
• Instrument Panel Clusters
• Inverters
• Motor Generators
• Occupancy Safety Systems
• Power Window Motors
• Radiators
• Starters
• Steering Angle Sensors
• Switches
• Transmission Fluid Warmers
• Valve Timing Control Devices
• Windshield Washer Systems
• Windshield Wipers
• Wire Harness Systems

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.

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.

Proposed Class:
You or your company may have directly purchased Li-Ion Batteries and/or Li-Ion Products from January 1, 2000 through May 31, 2011. For purposes of this Settlement, a direct purchaser is a person or business who bought a Li-Ion Battery and/or Li-Ion Product directly from one or more of the Defendants, or any division, subsidiary or Affiliate thereof, or any alleged co-conspirator (as opposed to an intermediary, such as a retail store) in the United States.

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:

Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
LG Chem America, Inc.
LG Chem, Ltd.
Maxell Corporation of America
NEC Corporation
NEC Tokin Corporation
Panasonic Corporation
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Samsung SDI America, Inc.
Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Sanyo North America Corporation
Sony Corporation
Sony Electronics Inc.
Sony Energy Devices Corporation
Toshiba Corporation

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.

Proposed Class:
The Class includes persons and entities that, from January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2011, indirectly purchased a Li-Ion Battery or Li -Ion Product in the United States for their own use and not for resale.

“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.

Proposed Class:
The settlement benefits the following Washington consumers (individuals and businesses) and governmental entities that purchased product(s) containing an LCD Flat Panel between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006:

Products containing an LCD Flat Panel during the relevant time period include:
• televisions referred to as LCD or LED TV’s
• flat-screen monitors
• notebook computers
• color-screen iPods
• color-screen cell phones purchased beginning in 2004

Filing Deadline:
June 17, 2016
Deadline Extended: September 30, 2016

Settlement Amount:
$63,218,235

Defendants: Purchases are eligible if NOT bought Directly from Manufacturers below:

• AU Optronics (AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics Corp., America)
• Chimei (Chimei Innolux Corp. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.)
• Chunghwa (Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.)
• Epson (Epson Imaging Devices Corp. and Epson Electronics America, Inc.)
• Hitachi (Japan Displays East, Inc., f/k/a Hitachi Displays, Ltd.)
• LG (LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.)
• Samsung (Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.)
• Sharp (Sharp Corp. and Sharp Electronics Corp.)
• Toshiba (Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co. Ltd.).

Washington consumers:
The Washington State Attorney General reached a settlement on behalf of Washington consumers. You are eligible to participate in the settlement if you or your business:
• purchased an LCD Flat Panel product between January 1, 1998 and December 1, 2006; and
• resided or had headquarters in Washington at the time of purchase; and
• purchased the LCD Flat Panel product from a retailer or someone other than the manufacturer of the component screen; and
• purchased the LCD Flat Panel product for your own use and not for resale.
Washington state governmental entities: The Washington State Attorney General also settled claims on behalf of the state governmental entities that participated in the lawsuit.

Background:
The Washington State Attorney General alleged that the named LCD Flat Panel manufacturers participated in cartel meetings in which they allegedly exchanged price information and agreed to fix LCD Flat Panel prices and manipulate the supply of panels to artificially increase prices. The complaint alleged that the conduct of the Defendant manufacturers resulted in overcharges to Washington consumers who bought products containing an LCD Flat Panel.

Proposed Class:
The Illinois Attorney General is seeking monetary damages incurred by any Illinois resident (person or business) that purchased TFT-LCD panel products between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006, while residing in Illinois and for their own use and not for resale.

TFT-LCD panel products include:
• most notebook computers with color displays,
• flat screen monitors
• TVs referred to as LCD or LED TVs
• Cell phones
• MP3 players
• and other small-screen devices with high resolution color displays

Settlement Amount:
$104,646,436

Filing Deadline:
October 4, 2016

Defendants: Purchases are eligible if NOT bought Directly from Manufactures below:
• AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics Corp. America, Inc. (“AU Optronics”)
• Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and CMO Japan Co. Ltd. (“Chi Mei”)
• Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. (“Chunghwa”)
• Epson Imaging Devices Corp, formerly known as Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation and Epson Electronics America, Inc. (“Epson”)
• Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd. and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. (“Hitachi”)
• LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (“LG”)
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”)
• Sharp Corp. and Sharp Electronics Corp. (“Sharp”)
• Toshiba Corp., Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“Toshiba”)

Background:
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges to consumers who bought products containing the TFT-LCD Flat Panels. Settlements have been reached with Chunghwa, Epson, LG, Hitachi, Chi Mei and Sharp. Non-Settling Defendants (AU Optronics, Toshiba, and Samsung) have not agreed to settle so the lawsuit continues against them.

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:

• Air New Zealand
• All Nippon Airways Company, Ltd
• American Airlines, Inc.
• Asiana Airlines, Inc.
• British Airways, Plc.
• Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
• China Airlines Limited (Taiwan)
• Continental Airlines, Inc.
• Delta Airlines, Inc.
• Deutsche Lufthansa AG
• EVA Airways Corporation
• The International Air Transport Association
• Japan Airlines International Company, Ltd.
• Korean Airlines, Ltd.
• KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
• Malaysian Airline System Berhad
• Northwest Airlines Corporation
• Philippine Airlines, Inc.
• Qantas Airways Limited
• Scandinavian Airlines System
• Singapore Airlines Limited
• Societe Air France
• Swiss International AG
• Thai Airways International Public Co., Ltd
• United Airlines, Inc.
• Vietnam Airlines Company Limited
• Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd.

Partial Settlement Amount:
$39,502,000

Filing Deadline:
September 19, 2015

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.

Proposed Class:

Generally, you may be included in one or more of the Round 1 or Round 2 Settlement Classes if, at any time from 1996 to 2016, 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:

$604 million

Filing Deadline:

To be determined

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.

Confidentiality

All client files, supporting documentation and sensitive information will always be kept private and destroyed upon claim completion.

Non-Disclosure

We never advertise our past or present clients on our website.

Risk-Free

Our service is provided on a contingency basis. We don't get paid unless a successful recovery is made for you.

Lowest Fee Guarantee

We will beat any competitor fees.