Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/07/2013 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: February 07, 2007

The complaint charges LG.Philips and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LG.Philips engages in the manufacture and supply of thin film transistor liquid crystal displays ("LCD") to original equipment manufacturers and multinational corporations. It sells its products primarily in the United States, Korea, Asia, and Europe.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made positive statements concerning the Company's LCD business while, unbeknownst to investors, defendants were using artificial antitrust mechanisms, including price fixing, to support the Company's already inflated margins. However, by late spring 2006, as the Company's executives became aware of fines and jail sentences imposed for price fixing in the industry, they began ceasing their price-fixing behavior and rumors about the reasons for the sudden "weak pricing" in the LCD marketplace circulated throughout the markets. Without artificial anticompetitive mechanisms in place, the Company's profits began to fall and its share price declined from $22 to $15.

On December 8, 2006, officials from South Korea's Fair Trade Commission appeared at the Company's Seoul headquarters to proceed with a formal investigation of the Company and its top executives. Then on December 11, 2006, the Company announced it was being investigated for possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry. The announcement spurred a two-day stock slide that erased about $1.6 billion in market value from the top five producers, including LG.Philips.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following material adverse facts from the investing public: (a) from on or about June 2004 until on or about June 2006, LG.Philips and its co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of LCD panel products to be sold to resellers and consumers; and (b) as a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices, enabling the Company to consummate its initial public offering raising $1 billion, its secondary offering raising $1.4 billion, and obtain an additional $500 million in other securities offerings on terms otherwise unobtainable but for defendants' conduct, including the use of defective prospectuses for each such offering.

On May 14, 2007, Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the Order consolidating two related actions under the consolidated action, In re L.G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation. Betty O. Abrams and Justin Coren were appointed Lead Plaintiffs for the Class and their choice of counsel, the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, were approved as Lead Counsel. On August 8, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 20, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 8, 2009.

According to the complaint filed on June 2, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Eun-Ja Son , et al. v. LG Display Co., et al., case number 10-CV-04380, defendants issued numerous statements materially misrepresenting LG's prospects in the LCD business and the ongoing investigations of LG's anticompetitive practices. Until the end of the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose that they had been using deceptive antitrust mechanisms to artificially inflate LG's earnings and profit margins and throughout fiscal year 2004, the Defendants' positive claims all shared the common theme that LCD prices would stabilize in the near future and that, as a result, LCD product demand would show a corresponding increase. The Defendants failed to disclose that LG's anticompetitive activities were actually creating the stabilized market. Throughout fiscal year 2005, the Defendants continued to issue positive statements and representations concerning the LCD market and the Company's financial results, while failing to disclose that their participation in an unlawful price-fixing scheme was behind LG's prosperity in the LCD market. This case has been related to 1:07-cv-00909-RJS.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: Korea

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LPL
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 07-CV-00909
JUDGE: Hon. Kenneth M. Karas
DATE FILED: 02/07/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
    519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue, Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, PA 15219
    412.391.5164 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 07-CV-00909
JUDGE: Hon. Kenneth M. Karas
DATE FILED: 03/20/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Radnor)
    280 King of Prussia Road, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Radnor), PA 19087
    610.667.7706 610.667.7706 · info@btkmc.com
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date