Philips 2015 Annual Report Download - page 155

Group nancial statements 12.9
Annual Report 2015 155
The Company reached settlements with both the direct
purchaser plaintis and indirect purchaser plaintis
fully resolving all claims of the direct and indirect
purchaser class. The direct purchaser settlement was
approved by the court in 2012, while the indirect
purchaser settlement is still subject to court approval
with a hearing on the nal approval scheduled for
March 2016. In the past years the Company also
reached settlements with a number of the individual
plaintis resolving all claims by those retailers on a
global basis. The settlements reached to date represent
the vast majority of CRT sales attributed to the
Company by the individual plaintis. In eect, all cases
originally scheduled for trial in the Northern District of
California have now been resolved, leaving unresolved
certain of the cases that were consolidated in the
California case for pre-trial purposes that have to be
transferred back to their original venue for further
proceedings. Trial dates have not yet been set for those
cases.
In addition, the state attorneys general of California,
Florida, Illinois, Oregon and Washington led actions
against the Company and other defendants seeking to
recover damages on behalf of the states and, acting as
parens patriae, their consumers. In 2012 the Florida
complaint was withdrawn. In 2013 a settlement
agreement was reached with the state attorney general
of California that has been approved subject to review
by the California Court of Appeal. The actions brought
by the state attorneys general of Illinois, Oregon and
Washington are pending in the respective state courts
of the plaintis. The Oregon Attorney General action
has tentatively been set for trial in January 2017. Trial
dates for the Washington and Illinois actions have not
been set and there is no timetable for resolution of
these cases.
Canada
In 2007, certain Philips Group companies were also
being named as defendants in proposed class
proceedings in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia,
Canada, along with numerous other participants in the
industry. After years of inactivity, in 2014, plaintis in the
Ontario action initiated the class certication
proceedings. Class certication hearings took place late
January 2016 and a decision on class certication is
expected in the rst half of 2016.
Other civil claims related to CRT
In 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
consumer class action lawsuit led in Israel in which
damages are claimed against several defendants based
on alleged anticompetitive activities in the CRT
industry. In addition, an electronics manufacturer led
a claim against the Company and several co-
defendants with a court in the Netherlands, also
seeking compensation for the alleged damage
sustained as a result from the alleged anticompetitive
activities in the CRT industry. In 2015, the Company
became involved in further civil CRT antitrust litigation
with previous CRT customers in the United Kingdom,
Germany, Brazil and Denmark. In all cases the same
substantive allegations about anticompetitive activities
in the CRT industry are made and damages are sought.
The Company has received indications that more civil
claims may be led in due course.
Except for what has been provided or accrued for as
disclosed in note 19, Provisions and note 22, Other
liabilities, the Company has concluded that due to the
considerable uncertainty associated with certain of
these matters, on the basis of current knowledge,
potential losses cannot be reliably estimated with
respect to these matters.
Optical Disc Drive (ODD)
On October 27, 2009, the Antitrust Division of the
United States Department of Justice conrmed that it
had initiated an investigation into possible
anticompetitive practices in the Optical Disc Drive
(ODD) industry. Philips Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp.
(PLDS), a joint venture owned by the Company and
Lite-On IT Corporation, as an ODD market participant,
is included in this investigation. PLDS and the Company
have been accepted under the Corporate Leniency
program of the US Department of Justice and have
continued to cooperate with the authorities in these
investigations. On this basis, the Company expects to
be immune from governmental nes.
In July 2012, the European Commission issued a
Statement of Objections addressed to (former) ODD
suppliers including the Company and PLDS. The
European Commission granted the Company and PLDS
immunity from nes, conditional upon the Company’s
continued cooperation. The Company responded to
the Statement of Objections both in writing and at an
oral hearing. On October 21, 2015 the European
Commission issued its ning decisions in which it
granted immunity to the Company, Lite-On IT
Corporation and PLDS.
The antitrust authority in one remaining jurisdiction is
still investigating the matter.
Subsequent to the public announcement of these
investigations in 2009, the Company, PLDS and Philips
& Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc. (PLDS USA),
among other industry participants, were named as
defendants in numerous class action antitrust
complaints led in various federal district courts in the
United States. These actions allege anticompetitive
conduct by manufacturers of ODDs and seek treble
damages on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
ODDs and products incorporating ODDs. These actions
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. Initially the plaintis’ applications for
certication of both the direct and indirect purchaser
classes were denied. In May 2015, the indirect purchaser
plaintis led a revised motion for class certication
seeking to certify a class of end consumers as plaintis,
which was granted on February 8, 2016.