Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation consolidates claims that manufacturers of CRT components used in televisions and computer monitors coordinated globally on pricing and output, harming both direct purchasers (companies that bought CRTs to build finished products) and indirect purchasers further down the distribution chain. Centralized in the Northern District of California in 2008, the docket still shows 54 pending actions nearly two decades later, a population size that reflects both the sprawl of the original global conspiracy — dozens of manufacturer defendants across multiple countries — and continuing activity among direct-purchaser plaintiffs whose claims were carved out or litigated separately from the earlier indirect-purchaser class track.

For a funder, a docket this mature but still populated presents a different profile than either a brand-new MDL or a fully wound-down one. The core conspiracy allegations, market definitions, and much of the economic evidence have already been developed and tested over many years of litigation, which reduces the liability-side uncertainty that typically makes early-stage antitrust funding difficult to price. What remains is largely a claim-by-claim administration exercise: verifying a given plaintiff's CRT purchase volumes and timing against the established conspiracy period.

That profile suits inventory and portfolio finance structures well. A law firm or corporate claimant group holding a book of direct-purchaser claims — electronics manufacturers, distributors, or their successors — can be underwritten with reasonable confidence once purchase records are verified, which is the kind of diligence Criterica Capital's commercial litigation finance desk is built to run. Duration risk is tied more to individual claim resolution timelines within the existing framework than to a fresh liability fight. A structure and litigation brief on the current docket population is also available for firms evaluating a specific claim book.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.