This billion-dollar recovery for indirect purchasers of LCD panels, if approved by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, will likely lead to some big fees for the plaintiffs lawyers. In a separate case brought by different counsel on behalf of direct purchasers, Illston approved a 30 percent fee, for a total of $121 million.

In a price-fixing case that Mississippi's attorney general brought against a slew of LCD makers, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether parens patriae lawsuits are class actions in disguise that don't belong in the hands of state court judges.

Only a relatively small chunk of the direct purchaser market for LCD panels is included in Tuesday's price-fixing settlement, which doesn't exactly bode well for the defendants' remaining civil liabilities.

Yes, it's true. We are all plaintiffs now. Or nearly all of us, thanks to a pair of March 28 orders certifying two classes in the consolidated antitrust litigation against the makers of liquid crystal display screens.

Three of the firms represent foreign companies that are defendants in a civil antitrust class action over LCD products. The court ruled that the Department of Justice can subpoena client documents that originated overseas, and which the DOJ has been unable to obtain for a grand jury probe.

With so much manufacturing moving overseas, AU Optronics's appeal of the company's criminal price-fixing conviction could have broad implications for a crucial question: Can alleged cartels thwart U.S. antitrust enforcement efforts if much of their alleged conduct took place abroad?