Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page1 of 48
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Andrew M. Purdy (State Bar No. 261912)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 500-6800
`Facsimile:
`(415) 395-9940
`Email:
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`
`apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
`jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff
`Chip-Tech, Ltd.
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CHIP-TECH, LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff, and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
`SANYO ELECTRIC GROUP, LTD.; SANYO
`ELECTRONIC DEVICE (U.S.A.)
`CORPORATION; TAIYO YUDEN CO., LTD.;
`TAIYO YUDEN (USA) INC.; NEC TOKIN
`CORPORATION; NEC TOKIN AMERICA,
`INC.; KEMET CORPORATION; KEMET
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; NIPPON
`CHEMI-CON CORPORATION; UNITED
`CHEMI-CON CORPORATION; HITACHI
`CHEMICAL CO., LTD.; HITACHI CHEMICAL
`COMPANY AMERICA, LTD.; NICHICON
`CORPORATION; NICHICON (AMERICA)
`CORPORATION; AVX CORPORATION;
`RUBYCON CORPORATION; RUBYCON
`AMERICA INC.; ELNA CO., LTD.; ELNA
`AMERICA INC.; MATSUO ELECTRIC CO.,
`LTD.; TOSHIN KOGYO CO., LTD.; VISHAY
`INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRO-MECHANICS; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRO-MECHANICS AMERICA, INC.;
`ROHM CO., LTD.; and ROHM
`SEMICONDUCTOR U.S.A., LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page2 of 48
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Chip-Tech, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action individually, and on behalf of a class of
`
`all persons and entities similarly situated (the “Class”), for damages and injunctive relief under the
`
`antitrust laws of the United States against defendants Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of
`
`North America; Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd.; Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation; Taiyo
`
`Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc.; NEC Tokin Corporation; NEC Tokin America, Inc.;
`
`KEMET Corporation; KEMET Electronics Corporation; Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation; United
`
`Chemi-Con Corporation; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd.;
`
`Nichicon Corporation; Nichicon (America) Corporation; AVX Corporation; Rubycon Corporation;
`
`Rubycon America Inc.; Elna Co., Ltd.; Elna America Inc.; Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; Toshin Kogyo
`
`Co., Ltd.; Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.; Samsung Electro-Mechanics; Samsung Electro-Mechanics
`
`America, Inc.; ROHM Co., Ltd.; and ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC (together, the
`
`“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges facts regarding itself based on personal knowledge, and on information
`
`and belief as to all other factual allegations, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This civil antitrust action seeks damages and injunctive relief for the collusive and
`
`concerted restraint of trade in aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors orchestrated by the
`
`Defendants—all of whom are leading manufacturers and direct competitors in the global capacitors
`
`industry—during a period spanning from at least January 1, 2005 to present (the “Class Period”).
`2.
`
`Capacitors are one of the fundamental components found in electrical circuits. All
`
`electronic devices we use today—from the cheapest household appliances to our personal computers to
`
`multi-million dollar machinery and vehicles—employ various electrical circuits working in concert to
`
`perform the various tasks for which we use them. By electrical current flowing through a circuit, the
`
`path for which is usually defined by a printed circuit board (“PCB”), electronic signals can be
`
`amplified, simple and complex computations can be performed, data can be moved from one place to
`
`another, and the myriad other tasks that make our electronic devices perform can be executed.
`3.
`
`Without the flow of electrical current, circuit boards—as well as the devices that contain
`
`them—will not work. Accordingly, circuits must not only have a source for current, but also means for
`
`storing and regulating the flow of that current. While either a battery or a connection to an external
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page3 of 48
`
`
`
`power supply typically provides current to a circuit, capacitors are integrated into electrical circuits
`
`primarily to store charge and govern its flow so that the tasks and applications we ask of our electrical
`
`devices have sufficiently available and immediately dischargeable electrical charge to perform when
`
`commanded to do so.
`4.
`
`Capacitors are ubiquitous components in the electronic devices we use. Indeed, it is
`
`nearly impossible to think of a device that does not contain at least one capacitor. An average
`
`smartphone, for example, employs between 300 to 500 capacitors of varying capacitance (i.e., the
`
`potential amount of charge a capacitor can store), dielectric (i.e., the insulating material in the capacitor
`
`that allows it to hold a charge) and form factors (i.e., size and shape). Computers can contain anywhere
`
`between 100 and 700 capacitors mounted on and integrated into their motherboards and
`
`daughterboards. Most modern automobiles use hundreds of capacitors in their onboard electrical,
`
`navigation, entertainment and diagnostic systems.
`5.
`
`As society’s dependence on technology has grown, so too has the demand of electronic
`
`device manufacturers for the components necessary to produce their innovative products. Given that
`
`capacitors are fundamental to the operation of practically all electronic devices, it is not surprising that
`
`the market for capacitors is big business. Indeed, recent reports indicate that global revenues for all
`
`manufacturers in the capacitor industry in 2013 totaled approximately $16 billion based on the sales of
`
`trillions of capacitors, and industry analysts estimate that global revenues will reach over $18 billion for
`
`the fiscal year 2014 and over $20 billion by 2016. These numbers are extraordinary, especially when the
`
`average price per unit for capacitors over the last five years has been $0.01178, or $11.78 per thousand
`
`units.
`
`6.
`
`The multi-billion dollar market for capacitors, however, is one susceptible to
`
`anticompetitive manipulation. Given the significantly high barriers to entering the already mature
`
`capacitors manufacturing industry and achieving the large volume of sales required to reach economies
`
`of scale and profitability, the global capacitors market is dominated by a limited number of large
`
`manufacturers. This is especially true in the market for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors.
`
`The fact that these supposed competitors (specifically the Defendants named herein) sell mutually
`
`interchangeable commoditized products and adjust the prices and market availability of their products
`
`Case No.
`
`2
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page4 of 48
`
`
`
`in concert indicate that true competition in the capacitors market has been foreclosed.
`7.
`
`Generally speaking, capacitors of like capacitance, dielectric and form factor are
`
`mutually interchangeable. Price is thus the most obvious differentiation among these products for
`
`purchasers. Accordingly, any agreement among manufacturers to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
`
`on aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors or to reduce their market availability without
`
`justification, reduces or even negates price competition to the detriment of purchasers.
`8.
`
`The threat of anticompetitive manipulation in the aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
`
`capacitors market is not a hypothetical concern. Rather, the threat has become reality due to the
`
`actions of Defendants, who, as the leading global manufacturers of these types of electrolytic capacitors,
`
`have collusively and concertedly manipulated price competition for capacitors directed to both U.S. and
`
`international purchasers over nearly a decade. Indeed, after many years of active concealment,
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive acts recently have drawn the attention of law enforcement and regulatory
`
`agencies in the United States, the People’s Republic of China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe,
`
`all of which opened investigations earlier this year. At least one capacitor manufacturer, believed to be
`
`Defendant Panasonic, has self-reported its unlawful price fixing and is cooperating with authorities in at
`
`least the United States and China in exchange for amnesty from prosecution, and has disclosed
`
`background details regarding the cartel’s membership and the scope of Defendants’ conspiracy.
`9.
`
`Defendants formed, maintained, enforced and concealed a global cartel. Defendants
`
`took these unlawful steps because demand for their aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitor
`
`product lines began to wane in the early 2000s. While aluminum electrolytic capacitors have been
`
`relied upon by electronics manufacturers for decades, and used in products such as televisions, stereos,
`
`and desktop computers, they tend to be bulky in size and shape relative to other capacitors and are
`
`limited in the amount of capacitance they can provide at smaller sizes. In other words, they lack
`
`“volumetric efficiency.” As technology has advanced in the last decade toward smaller, more portable
`
`and multifunctional devices—e.g., from desktop computers to tablets and smartphones, or from stereos
`
`to personal music devices—many electronics manufacturers could no longer afford to provide
`
`aluminum electrolytic capacitors a footprint on the PCBs in their streamlined and compact products.
`10.
`
`Tantalum capacitors have significantly better volumetric efficiency than aluminum
`
`Case No.
`
`3
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page5 of 48
`
`
`
`capacitors because of tantalum’s natural non-conductive properties and its thinner dielectric, as well as
`
`the ability of manufacturers to produce very small tantalum capacitors with high capacitance. But
`
`making these capacitors is expensive; it is a labor- and resource-intensive process. Even without
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive acts, tantalum electrolytic capacitors are more expensive than other
`
`capacitors. Further, due to certain of their physical properties, tantalum capacitors can short circuit
`
`and catch fire if subjected to voltage spikes only slightly more than their rated capacitance value, at
`
`times destroying the devices in which they are installed.
`11.
`
`Since at least early 2000s, Defendants have been faced with declining demand for and
`
`profits from the sale of their aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitor product portfolios.
`
`Nonetheless, there remains a sizeable market for these capacitors. Industry analysts report that global
`
`revenues for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors were approximately $5.74 billion for fiscal
`
`year 2013, though this was approximately a $570 million drop from 2012 and nearly a $1.1 billion drop
`
`from 2005. To slow any further decline in demand, and to ensure that sales of their respective product
`
`portfolios would remain profitable, Defendants agreed that price competition among themselves for
`
`their mutually interchangeable aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors had to cease.
`12.
`
`For at least the last nine and a half years, Defendants conspired together by directly and
`
`indirectly communicating with each other to effectuate a scheme to control market prices of aluminum
`
`and tantalum electrolytic capacitors directed toward and sold into the United States market.
`
`Defendants also agreed to combine and perform the various acts necessary to achieve the
`
`anticompetitive purposes of this scheme.
`13.
`
`This conspiracy was furthered and facilitated by a course of anticompetitive conduct,
`
`including agreements and understandings among Defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
`
`for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors and to restrain their respective product output
`
`through extending product lead times based on pretextual reasons.
`14.
`
`The conspiracy was facilitated by the cartelized nature of the aluminum and tantalum
`
`electrolytic capacitor industry, which is dominated by and consists primarily of Defendants, who in the
`
`past held and continue to hold secret discussions, and who made agreements between and among
`
`themselves to exchange nonpublic and commercially sensitive information concerning pricing,
`
`Case No.
`
`4
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page6 of 48
`
`
`
`production capacity, costs, raw materials, and distribution. From the inception of the conspiracy to
`
`date, Defendants have concealed their anticompetitive and unlawful conduct from the public, including
`
`Plaintiff and the Class, in furtherance of the conspiracy.
`15.
`
`Defendants’ cartel has been successful in achieving the anticompetitive and unlawful
`
`ends for which it was formed. Through their concerted actions, Defendants created the market
`
`conditions that made it economically feasible for all cartel members to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
`
`artificially high prices on the capacitors they sold during the Class Period to purchasers in the United
`
`States. Defendants were effective in moderating—and even negating—the normal downward pressures
`
`on prices for capacitors caused by price competition, oversupply, reduction of demand and
`
`technological change.
`16.
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct resulted in the increase or slowed the
`
`decrease of aluminum and tantalum capacitor prices for products sold in the United States during the
`
`Class Period. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for the capacitors they
`
`directly purchased from Defendants. By paying these inflated prices, which exceeded the amount
`
`Plaintiff and the Class would have paid for the aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors they
`
`purchased if pricing for the capacitors had been determined by a competitive market, Plaintiff and the
`
`Class have been injured in their business and property and continue to suffer such injuries to date as a
`
`direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf as well as that of the Class to recover
`
`damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees arising from
`
`Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), as well as any and all equitable
`
`relief afforded them under the federal laws pleaded herein.
`18.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a) and
`
`Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26).
`19.
`
`Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this judicial district pursuant to Section 12 of the
`
`Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 22), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and (d), because a substantial part of the
`
`events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, a substantial portion of the affected
`
`Case No.
`
`5
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page7 of 48
`
`
`
`interstate trade and commerce was carried out in this District, and one or more of the Defendants
`
`reside in this District, is licensed to do business in this District, or transacts business in this District. In
`
`addition, the media has reported that the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”) is conducting an investigation into the capacitors industry and that the investigation is being
`
`conducted out of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Northern California. Based on
`
`the DOJ’s past practice with regard to similar antitrust investigations, Plaintiff believes that a federal
`
`criminal grand jury either has been or will soon be empaneled in the Northern District of California to
`
`hear the DOJ’s evidence derived from this investigation and ultimately decide on whether to criminally
`
`indict any capacitors manufacturers (such as one or more of the Defendants in this antitrust class
`
`action). Accordingly, the DOJ’s San Francisco-based capacitors industry investigation, and the likely
`
`empanelment of a grand jury here, are additional facts confirming the propriety of the Northern District
`
`of California as the venue for this antitrust class action.
`20.
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3.2 (c) and (e), assignment of this case to the San Francisco
`
`Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is proper because
`
`the interstate trade and commerce involved and affected by Defendants’ violations of the antitrust laws
`
`action was substantially conducted with, directed to or impacted Plaintiff and members of the Class in
`
`counties located within the Division.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Chip-Tech, Ltd. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 6 Dubon Court, Farmingdale, New York 11735. Plaintiff purchased aluminum and tantalum
`
`electrolytic capacitors directly from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered
`
`injury as a result of Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`1.
`Panasonic and Sanyo
`22. Defendant Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 1006, Oaza Kadoma, Kadoma-shi, Osaka 571-8501, Japan. Until October 1, 2008,
`
`Panasonic Corporation operated under the name of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. During the
`
`Case No.
`
`6
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page8 of 48
`
`
`
`Class Period, Panasonic Corporation manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and tantalum
`
`electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers
`
`throughout the United States.
`23.
`
`Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America, a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Panasonic Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at Two
`
`Riverfront Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 07102. During the Class Period, Panasonic Corporation of
`
`North America sold and distributed aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors to customers
`
`throughout the United States.
`24. Defendant Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., a Japanese corporation, is, as of December 2009,
`
`a wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation, with its principal place of business located at 15-5,
`
`Keihan-Hondori, 2-Chome, Moriguchi City, Osaka 570-8677, Japan. During the Class Period, Sanyo
`
`Electric Group, Ltd., manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum tantalum electrolytic capacitors
`
`either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States.
`25.
`
`Defendant Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., with its principal place of business located at
`
`2055 Sanyo Avenue, San Diego, California 92154. During the Class Period, Sanyo Electronic Device
`
`(U.S.A.) Corporation sold and distributed tantalum electrolytic capacitors to customers throughout the
`
`United States.
`26. Defendants Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Sanyo
`
`Electric Group, Ltd., and Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation are collectively referred to
`
`herein as “Panasonic.” With regard to any allegations pertaining to Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd. and
`
`Sanyo Electric Device (U.S.A.) Corporation prior to their acquisition by Panasonic, they are referred to
`
`herein as “Sanyo.”
`
`2.
`27.
`
`Taiyo Yuden
`
`Defendant Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 6-16-20, Ueno, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0005, Japan. During the Class Period, Taiyo
`
`Yuden Co., Ltd., manufactured, sold and distributed tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or
`
`through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States.
`
`Case No.
`
`7
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page9 of 48
`
`
`
`28. Defendant Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc., an Illinois corporation, is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., with its principal place of business located at 10 North Martingale
`
`Road, Suite 575, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173. During the Class Period, Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc. sold
`
`and distributed aluminum and/or tantalum electrolytic capacitors to customers throughout the United
`
`States.
`
`29. Defendants Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., and Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc. are collectively
`
`referred to herein as “Taiyo Yuden.”
`
`3.
`NEC Tokin
`30. Defendant NEC Tokin Corporation is a Japanese company with its principal place of
`
`business located at 7-1, Kohriyama 6-chome, Taihaku-ku, Sendai-shi, Miyagi 982-8510, Japan. During
`
`the Class Period, NEC Tokin Corporation manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum and/or
`
`tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates throughout
`
`the United States.
`31.
`
`Defendant NEC Tokin America, Inc., a California Corporation, is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of NEC Tokin Corporation with its principal place of business located at 2460 North First
`
`Street, Suite 220, San Jose, California 95131. During the Class Period, NEC Tokin America, Inc., sold
`
`and distributed aluminum and/or tantalum electrolytic capacitors throughout the United States.
`32.
`
`Defendants NEC Tokin Corporation and NEC Tokin America, Inc., are together
`
`referred to herein as “NEC Tokin.”
`
`4.
`33.
`
`KEMET
`
`Defendant KEMET Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 2835 Kemet Way, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681. During the Class Period,
`
`KEMET Corporation manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
`
`capacitors directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United
`
`States.
`
`34.
`
`On March 12, 2012, KEMET Corporation announced that it agreed to form a capital and
`
`business alliance with NEC Tokin Corporation because of their respective professed interests in
`
`increasing its tantalum electrolytic capacitor sales, reducing costs in areas such as procurement and
`
`Case No.
`
`8
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page10 of 48
`
`
`
`production, sharing their technological knowledge, and benefiting financially through the cross-selling
`
`of each other’s products. As a result of this alliance, KEMET received 34% of the outstanding shares of
`
`NEC Tokin (the remainder being held by non-party NEC Corporation), which provided KEMET with
`
`51% of the outstanding voting rights. KEMET currently holds the option to purchase NEC
`
`Corporation’s shares in NEC Tokin, which would thereby effect an acquisition of NEC Tokin by
`
`KEMET.
`35.
`
`Defendant KEMET Electronics Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of KEMET Corporation with its principal place of business located at 2835 Kemet Way,
`
`Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681. During the Class Period, KEMET Electronics Corporation
`
`manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors directly or through
`
`its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States.
`36.
`
`Defendants KEMET Corporation and KEMET Electronics Corporation are together
`
`referred to herein as “KEMET.” The KEMET-NEC Tokin alliance shall be referred to herein as
`
`“KEMET-NEC Tokin.”
`
`5.
`37.
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con
`
`Defendant Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 5-6-4, Osaki, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 141-8605, Japan. During the Class
`
`Period, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum electrolytic
`
`capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the
`
`United States.
`38.
`
`Defendant United Chemi-Con Corporation, an Illinois Corporation, is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation with its principal place of business located at 9801 West
`
`Higgins Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018. During the Class Period, United Chemi-Con manufactured,
`
`sold and distributed aluminum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents
`
`or affiliates to customers throughout the United States.
`39.
`
`Defendants Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation and United Chemi-Con Corporation are
`
`together referred to herein as “Nippon Chemi-Con.”
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`9
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page11 of 48
`
`
`
`6.
`Hitachi Chemical
`40. Defendant Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at Grantokyo South Tower, 1-9-2, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-6606,
`
`Japan. During the Class Period, Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., manufactured, sold, and distributed
`
`aluminum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to
`
`customers throughout the United States.
`41.
`
`Defendants Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., a New York corporation, is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. with its principal place of business located at
`
`10080 North Wolfe Road, Suite SW3-200, Cupertino, California 95014. During the Class Period,
`
`Hitachi Chemical Co. America sold and distributed aluminum electrolytic capacitors to customers
`
`throughout the United States.
`42. Defendants Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. and Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd.
`
`are together referred to herein as “Hitachi.”
`
`7.
`43.
`
`Nichicon
`
`Defendant Nichicon Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at Karasumadori Oike-agaru, Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604-0845 Japan. During the Class
`
`Period and until the company’s sale of its tantalum capacitor production operations to AVX
`
`Corporation in February 2013, Nichicon Corporation manufactured, sold, and distributed tantalum
`
`electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers
`
`throughout the United States. During the entire Class Period, Nichicon Corporation manufactured,
`
`sold and distributed aluminum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents
`
`or affiliates to customers throughout the United States.
`44. Defendant Nichicon (America) Corporation, an Illinois corporation, is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Nichicon Corporation with its principal place of business located at 927 East State
`
`Parkway, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173. During the Class Period and until Nichicon Corporation’s sale of
`
`its tantalum capacitor production operations to AVX Corporation in February 2013, Nichicon
`
`(America) Corporation sold, and distributed tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through
`
`its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States. During the entire Class
`
`Case No.
`
`10
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page12 of 48
`
`
`
`Period, Nichicon (America) Corporation sold and distributed aluminum electrolytic capacitors to
`
`customers throughout the United States.
`45.
`
`Defendants Nichicon Corporation and Nichicon (America) Corporation are together
`
`referred to herein as “Nichicon.”
`
`8.
`AVX
`46. Defendant AVX Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at One AVX Boulevard, Fountain Inn, South Carolina 29644. It is a subsidiary of
`
`Kyocera Corporation, a Japanese corporation that owns approximately 72% of the outstanding common
`
`stock in AVX Corporation. In or about February 2013, AVX acquired Nichicon’s tantalum capacitor
`
`production facilities in Japan and China, thereby expanding their global tantalum capacitor
`
`manufacturing operations. During the Class Period, AVX Corporation manufactured, sold and
`
`distributed tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates
`
`to customers throughout the United States.
`47.
`
`Defendant AVX Corporation is referred to herein as “AVX.”
`
`9.
`Rubycon
`48. Defendant Rubycon Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 1938-1, Nishi-Minowa, Ina-City, Nagano 399-4593, Japan. During the Class Period,
`
`Rubycon Corporation manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum electrolytic capacitors either
`
`directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States.
`49. Defendant Rubycon America Inc., an Illinois corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`of Rubycon Corporation with its principal place of business located at 4293 Lee Avenue, Gurnee,
`
`Illinois 60031. During the Class Period, Rubycon America Inc. sold and distributed aluminum
`
`electrolytic capacitors to customers throughout the United States.
`50. Defendants Rubycon Corporation and Rubycon America Inc. are together referred to
`
`herein as “Rubycon.”
`
`10. Elna
`51.
`
`Defendant Elna Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 3-8-11 Shin-Yokohama, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, 222-0033, Japan.
`
`Case No.
`
`11
`
`
`ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document1 Filed07/18/14 Page13 of 48
`
`
`
`During the Class Period, Elna Co., Ltd., manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum electrolytic
`
`capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the
`
`United States.
`52.
`Defendant Elna America Inc., a California corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`Elna Co., Ltd., with its principal place of business located at 879 West 190th Street, Suite 100, Gardena,
`
`California 90248. During the Class Period, Elna America Inc. sold and distributed aluminum
`
`electrolytic capacitors to customers throughout the United States.
`53.
`
`Defendants Elna Co., Ltd., and Elna America Inc. are together referred to herein as
`
`“Elna.”
`
`11. Matsuo
`54.
`
`Defendant Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 3-5- Sennari-cho, Toyonaka-shi, Osaka 561-8558, Japan. During the Class Period,
`
`Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
`
`capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the
`
`United States. Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., is referred to herein as “Matsuo.”
`
`12.
`55.
`
`Toshin Kogyo
`
`Defendant Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at Tsukasa Bldg. 2-15-4, Uchikanda Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. During the Class Period,
`
`Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd., manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
`
`capacitor products either directly or through its subsidiaries or af