These two linked claims seek to recover damages incurred as a result of alleged anti-competitive conductconcerning the sale of cathode ray tubes (“CRTs”). A 2012 European Commission decision found that the parent companies of the Defendants (Toshiba and Panasonic) had engaged in anti- competitive conduct by fixing prices and other selling conditions in relation to CRTs between July 1999 and June 2006. The Claimants had bought downstream products containing the cartelized CRTs, and sought redress in the English courts on two grounds: (i) breach of Article 101 TFEU; and (ii) economic tort claims under English law. On 2 May 2019, the High Court struck out the economic torts claims on the basis that the Claimants did not have an arguable case that the Defendants had the requisite intention to injure the Claimants. The Claimants’ arguments that they would be able to show that the Defendants knew or ought to have known that their conduct would cause the Claimants injury were rejected. The Court refused, however, to strike out the claims against Toshiba and Panasonic based on a breach of Article 101 TFEU. The Court held that there was an arguable case that both the Toshiba and Panasonic subsidiaries were aware of and/or knowingly participated in the cartel at the relevant time, or that liability could be attributed to them on other grounds, despite their not being addressees of the Commission infringement decision. The EU law claims could not, therefore, be struck out. The Court rejected the Defendants’ jurisdictional challenge, which had argued that it was not reasonably foreseeable to either Defendant that it would be sued in the English court, and that the sole purpose of the claim against the UK-domiciled Panasonic Defendant, was to remove the other Panasonic Defendants from their jurisdiction of domicile outside the UK.