ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-4340
DATE: March 28, 2012
BETWEEN:
Khalid Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation
Plaintiffs
- and -
Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Corporation, Infineon Technologies North America Corporation, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. o/a Crucial Technologies, Mosel Vitelic Corp., Mosel Vitelic Inc. and Elpida Memory, Inc.
Defendants
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act , 1992
Counsel:
• Jonathan Foreman and Robert Gain for the Plaintiffs
• Christopher Naudie for Elpida Memory, Inc.
• Katherine L. Kay for Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Corporation, Infineon Technologies North America Corporation
• Robert Kwinter for Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• John P. Brown for Hynix Semiconductor Inc. Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc.
• David W. Kent for Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. o/a Crucial Technologies
HEARING DATE: March 27, 2012
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[ 1 ] In this proposed class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Khalid Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation sue Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Corporation, Infineon Technologies North America Corporation, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. o/a Crucial Technologies, Mosel Vitelic Corp., Mosel Vitelic Inc. and Elpida Memory, Inc. for: (a) breach of Part IV of the Competition Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34; (b) civil conspiracy; and (c) tortious interference with economic interests. The action concerns allegations that the Defendants conspired to fix prices in DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices.
[ 2 ] There are parallel proceedings in British Columbia and Québec.
[ 3 ] Mr. Eidoo purchased DRAM and DRAM products during the proposed class period.
[ 4 ] Cygnus Electronics is an Ontario corporation that was a direct purchaser of DRAM and DRAM products during the proposed class period.
[ 5 ] Mr. Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics have reached a settlement with Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and the parties have signed a settlement agreement dated November 15, 2011.
[ 6 ] Under the settlement agreement, Elpida agrees to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of the class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec.
[ 7 ] The British Columbia court has certified the action as a class proceeding against Elpida Memory, Inc. for settlement purposes and has approved the notice of the certification order and the notice plan. Mr. Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation now move for similar orders in Ontario.
[ 8 ] The proposed class definition is as follows:
(i) all persons resident in Canada at the time of purchase and/or at the time of notice who purchased DRAM Products during the Settlement Class Period, except Excluded Persons and Persons who are included in the B.C. Settlement Class and the Québec Settlement Class; and
(ii) all persons resident in the United States at the time of purchase an/or at the time of notice who purchased DRAM products in Canada during the Settlement Class Period to the extent that such Persons have actual or potential claims as against the Defendants in respect of DRAM products that have not been wholly or completely settled or extinguished in the U.S. Settlement or otherwise in respect of the U.S. Proceedings.
[ 9 ] Mr. Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation propose that the Ontario action as against Elpida Memory, Inc. be certified for settlement purposes on the basis of the following common issue:
Did the Elpida Defendant(s), or any of them, conspire to harm the Settlement Class Members during the Settlement Class Period? If so, what damages, if any, are payable by the Elpida Defendants, or any of them to the Settlement Class Members?
[ 10 ] Pursuant to s. 5 (1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, having reviewed the motion record, I am satisfied that all of the criteria for certification have been satisfied.
[ 11 ] The Notices and the Notice Plan are similar to the notices and plan approved in British Columbia.
[ 12 ] I am satisfied that the notice and notice plan should be approved.
[ 13 ] There was no opposition to the motion.
[ 14 ] Order to go as asked.
Perell, J.
Released: March 28, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-4340
DATE: March 28, 2012
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Khalid Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation
Plaintiff
‑ and ‑
Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Corporation, Infineon Technologies North America Corporation, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. o/a Crucial Technologies, Mosel Vitelic Corp., Mosel Vitelic Inc. and Elpida Memory, Inc.
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
Perell, J.
Released: March 28, 2012.