Class Action Law News

Eaton Corporation's ("Eaton") last ditch efforts to wiggle out of a jury verdict, were denied in early March 2011. Delaware District Court Judge Sue. L. Robinson determined that the jury had sufficient evidence to find that Eaton was unlawfully monopolizing the billion dollar Class 8 commercial truck transmission market. Class 8 commercial trucks - or heavy duty trucks - are trucks that weigh more than 33,000 lbs. This decision comes in the wake of separate actions against Eaton filed by market competitors and truck transmission purchasers - all claiming antitrust violations.

The March 10, 2011 decision stems from a 2006 antitrust law suit brought by competitor plaintiffs ZF Meritor LLC and Meritor Transmission Corp. The plaintiffs claimed that Eaton was illegally monopolizing a substantial share of the heavy duty truck transmission market by strong-arming manufactures into entering into long term exclusive contracts to purchase Eaton transmissions. In October 2009, the jury found the defendants liable for their unlawful conduct.

In an attempted end-run around the jury's findings, Eaton requested that the Court, in effect, overturn the jury's verdict against them. Notably, Eaton claimed that the jury could not have found for plaintiffs because the alleged anticompetitive conduct supposedly led to lower market prices. Since no loss was suffered, Eaton argued, there could be no liability, as injury is a requirement to prevail in an antitrust action. However, the Court disagreed, noting that obtaining that foreclosing the market is a form of antitrust injury.

Also pending before Judge Robinson in the District Court of Delaware is a class action law suit brought by plaintiffs who purchased Class 8 truck transmissions from manufacturers Daimler Trucks North American, Freightliner, Navistar International, International Truck and Engine, Paccar, Kenworth Truck, Peterbilt Motors, Volvo Trucks North America, and Mack Trucks between October 2002 and the present. MURRAY FRANK LLP has been appointed by the Delaware Court as co-lead counsel in this action.

If you have purchased a Class 8 truck transmission and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any questions concerning your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us.

Internet forums have been buzzing, flooded with the tales of angry TV purchasers. Customers complain that their liquid crystal display ("LCD"), digital light processing ("DLP"), and plasma flat screen televisions break down - sometimes, right after their warranties expired. Customers claim that their TVs shut off unexpectedly, make clicking noises or fail to turn on and off.

A 2004 University of Maryland study sheds light on these TV problems. A TV's capacitors, necessary parts of the electronic circuit boards, must function properly for it to work. The study found that faulty capacitors manufactured in Taiwan prematurely broke down due to a chemical imbalance. It is believed that TV manufactures knew about these defective capacitors but used them in their TVs anyway to save money and increase profits. As a result, the TVs' electronic components would prematurely burn-out, often right after the expiration of the warranty, even during normal use, rendering the TVs inoperable, and often forcing customers to pay for the repairs.

As a result of numerous customer complaints, two proposed class action law suits were filed against Philips/Magnavox and Samsung. The complaints allege that the TV companies knew about these defects and failed to fix the problems or to warn customers, in spite of the companies' promises that the TVs would have a life span of tens of thousands of hours. These law suits were filed in an attempt to hold the TV manufactures responsible for their products and the promises they made to consumers.

If you have experienced problems with your LCD, DLP or plasma flat screen television from manufactures such as Vizio, LG, Toshiba, Sony and, Panasonic, please contact us for an evaluation of your possible claims.