Finding The Right Forum? Samsung's LCD Cartel Contribution Claim Blocked In England

• Published date: 20 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Anti-trust/Competition Law, Antitrust, EU Competition , Cartels, Monopolies
• Law Firm: Hausfeld & Co LLP
• Author: Ms Wessen Jazrawi

In a recent judgment, the 'Court of Appeal (CoA)' upheld the High Court's ruling that England is not the appropriate jurisdiction for a contribution claim filed by Samsung against LG. The contribution claim was filed by Samsung after it had settled a 2015 claim brought against it in England by a number of local authorities in connection with a cartel in the LCD panels market.

The courts reached the conclusion that the contribution proceedings could instead be brought in South Korea or Taiwan, where respectively both Samsung and LG were headquartered, and the cartel meetings took place.

Background

In December 2010, the 'European Commission (the Commission)' adopted a 'decision (the Decision)' against several Korean and Taiwanese companies for participating in a cartel in the sector of 'liquid crystal display (LCD)' panels used in screens. The cartelists, including Samsung and LG group companies, held regular cartel meetings, mainly in hotels in Taiwan.

Several sets of follow-on proceedings were filed in England against Samsung and, in some actions, other cartelists, including the LG companies. The contribution claim in question was filed against LG only after a settlement was reached by Samsung with the claimants in one of these actions. LG contested jurisdiction, submitting that Samsung had failed to show that England was clearly the appropriate forum for the claim.

The judgment

Below we focus on the two grounds for appeal discussed at length by the CoA in its judgment.

The "Cambridgeshire factor"

Samsung argued that the contribution claim should continue in England because the settlement related to claims for damages arising out of a cartel that was alleged to have been implemented in or intended to affect England. The English courts had already taken jurisdiction over a series of actions relating to the cartel, including a claim in which LG was a defendant: iiyama v Samsung Electronics Ltd.

The High Court had acknowledged, and the CoA agreed, that the fact that the underlying claim is proceeding in England could be a powerful, and even overwhelming, factor in favour of hearing the contribution claim within the jurisdiction. However, where the underlying claim had already been settled, the only question for consideration is what forum is most appropriate for the trial of the contribution claim.

The fact that the English courts took jurisdiction of claims relating to the LCD cartel (and a related cathode ray tubes cartel) in iiyama v Samsung Electronics...