Legal Fee Tracker: China's Irico faces fee award plus damages in price-fixing case
By Mike Scarcella
Nov 21 (Reuters) -Facing a potential multibillion-dollar default judgment in an antitrust case, Chinese state-owned manufacturing company Irico Group told a U.S. judge this year that being ordered to pay part of its opponents' legal fees could be an alternative sanction.
Instead, after nearly two decades of litigation, the company is on the hook for both.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland on Nov. 15 ruled fully for the plaintiffs, who accused Irico and other tech manufacturers of fixing prices for cathode ray tubes used in TVs and other screens.
The plaintiffs, direct and indirect purchasers of the devices, said in a court filing last year that Irico "acted with breathtaking disregard for the law and this court’s authority” from the start of the case, delaying its progress and destroying documents such as pricing, production and sales information.
Adopting a court-appointed official's report, Tigar found Irico's actions "deprived plaintiffs and any factfinder of ever knowing the true facts."
The court entered a default judgment against Irico as a terminating sanction and asked both sides to report back to him within a month with proposals about how to determine damages, which the plaintiffs have said could be more than $2.4 billion.
Irico's lawyers at Norton Rose Fulbright and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment on the judge's decision.
Irico denied the antitrust claims and disputed the plaintiffs' misconduct allegations, arguing it employed standard document retention procedures. It had urged the court not to impose sanctions, but said any sanction could be limited to legal fees or advising jurors about missing evidence.
The judge disagreed. Tigar said the plaintiffs deserve damages on top of all legal fees tied to their pursuit of sanctions against Irico for more than a year.
Legal fees alone "would not put the class plaintiffs where they would have been had Irico not spoliated evidence, delayed for almost a decade and repeatedly flouted discovery orders," the judge said.
Tigar said he would determine the size of the fee award after hearing more arguments from both sides.
Irico was the last defendant in the sprawling antitrust litigation, which began in 2007.
The company and other manufacturers were accused of conducting meetings to coordinate on setting prices. The North American market was the largest for cathode ray tubes during the class period, according to the plaintiffs.
Other companies settled with the plaintiffs without admitting to any wrongdoing. In 2015, Samsung agreed to pay $225 million in a settlement, and Philips paid $175 million.
— In other legal fee news, law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan was back in court this week in Washington, D.C., fighting over the status of a $185 million fee award in a landmark healthcare case that a judge cut in half earlier this year.
A Federal Claims judge in October slashed the award to $92 million, and now Quinn is on the hook to pay back the rest of it to class members, including UnitedHealth and Kaiser entities that objected to the original fee amount.
At a Nov. 19 hearing, Quinn and the fee challengers argued over how quickly the firm should be required to return the money, and what amount of interest should be tacked on. The court asked the lawyers to negotiate a resolution to avoid further litigation.
Court filings show Quinn Emanuel purchased judgment preservation insurance for the initial $185 million award. The firm was responsible for $9.1 million, and its insurance covered the remaining $166.85 million.
— American Airlines reached a tentative settlement with flight booking company Sabre in the airline’s fight to recover more than $139 million in legal fees after winning just $1 in damages at a 2022 trial.
American and Sabre told U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan on Nov. 16 that the companies agreed in principle to resolve their fight over fees in the 13-year-old case. The terms were not disclosed, and American did not respond to a request for comment. Sabre declined to comment.
Read more:
Legal Fee Tracker: 3M earplug settlement lawyers inch closer to $540 mln payout
Legal Fee Tracker: California, Sullivan & Cromwell square off in Kidde-Fenwal case
Legal Fee Tracker: Lawsuit reveals fight over awards after $5.6 bln 'swipe fees' settlement
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
