LCD follow-on claim fights on – with territorial limitations

LCD follow-on claim fights on – with territorial limitations

The High Court has refused to dismiss a follow-on claim by monitor manufacturer Iiyama against members of the liquid crystal display (LCD) cartel but has not allowed it to claim that sales that occurred outside the EU infringed EU competition law.

The Court found that in relation to the supply chains between the parties the cartel was implemented outside the EU so fell outside the territorial scope of Article 101. The Court did observe, however, that the European Commission had found that the cartel was implemented in the EU so that there was a breach of Article 101. The question for the Court was whether the claimants could establish that they had suffered harm due to the implementation of the cartel in the EU.  It found that the claimants had pleaded an arguable case on this point, although there was not much evidence which specifically supported the plea and no doubt LG and Samsung would closely scrutinise it.

The Court also held that the claimants had an arguable case against the UK subsidiaries of one of the South Korean defendants even though they were not addressees of the European Commission’s decision.

It seems then that the focus of Iiyama’s claims was on their indirect purchases, where a supply chain could be traced back to the overcharges of the cartel members that were implemented in the EU. (UK) Ltd & Ors v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1980 (Ch)