`
`
`
`Joseph W. Cotchett (36324)
`
`
`
`Steven N. Williams (175489)
`
`
`
`2|) Elizabeth Tran (280502)
`
`
`
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`
`
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`
`
`
`4|) Telephone: 650-697-6000
`
`
`Facsimile: 650-697-0577
`
`
`5||jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
`
`swilliams@cpmlegal.com
`
`etran@cpmlegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interim Lead Counselfor the Putative Indirect Purchaser Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 28
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATESTO:
`
`
`
`
`ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Master File No. 14-cv-03264-JD
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’
`
`
`
`FIRST CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`***REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION***
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1||
`
`3||
`
`6||
`
`7||
`
`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`
`
`13|| LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
` LAW OFFICES
`
`
`COTCHETT, PrTRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`Elna Defendants...
`
`
`...20
`
`
`...20
`
`21
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Involved in Film Capacitor Conspiracy............00...0ceeeeeeeeeee
`23
`
`@monops
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Nissei Electric Co., Ltd. 0.0.0... ceeee cece eect cece
`23
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Nitsuko Electronics Corp.........0..000.ccccceceecceeseeeneeeeteeeee
`23
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd...
`23
`
`
`
`Shinyei Defendant«022.002... eeceeecececeeeeeeecenseeneeeenseenteetees
`veceeeeeees 23
`
`
`
`Defendant Soshin Electric Co., Ltd. o..... ooo cece cece eeeeee eee
`24
`
`
`Defendant Taitsu Corp...
`beceeseeesseenseeeseeeees
`...24
`Defendant Toshin KogyoCCo., Ltd...
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS.000..occccccececececce cece cee eeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeenseeseeees 25
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Background on Capacitors...
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATEDCOMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI=INTRODUCTION TO CAPACITORSo0o..ocecccecceecccecc eee eeeeeeeeeceeeceeeceeeeenseceeeeeneeeeeseeneees 25
`27
`
`
`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con Defendants...
`
`
`Rubycon Defendants...
`
`
`
`Panasonic Defendants «20... cece eeecceeeceeeccenceeneeceneeeeseeenaeeneee 19
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Involved in Electrolytic Capacitor Conspiracy....
`
`.
`
`veceeeeeeeetceeteeere
`
`.
`
`d.
`
`a
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`d
`
`
`
`
`Defendant MatsuoElectric Co., Ltd..
`
`
`
`
`NEC TOKIN Defendant...000. oo... eee cece c cece cece cnteeetecteneteneees
`21
`
`
`
`Nichicon Defendants ...0...... 2.00 .ccececeecceceeeeeceeneceeseeeneecneeeteetenetensees
`22
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`1 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aHO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE.0.00... .occcceccceeccccc cee eeece cece ceeeeceeeceaeeeeeeseeeseneceneeseneseeseesneeeeeee 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plamntifts 2... eee eee eee cece ccc ceccceceeeeeeeececcescceseesececeesaeeaeseaeceaeceeseeeeseeseseeaeeeseeseeessees
`10
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`First-Level Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.........0..00..00000eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
`
`
`veceeeeeees 10
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs -........0...00..00...eeceeceeeceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeees
`
`
`12
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants -..............ccececceeccecccesceeceeeeeeeececeeseceeeeseeeceesceeseceaeceseceeeeseeseeeeeeseeeseeneeessees
`17
`
`
`17
`
`
`17
`
`.. 18
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Involved in BoththElectrolyticatand FilmnCapacitor
`
`Conspiracies...
`
`
`
`
`Hitachi Defendants...
`
`
`
`
`
`a b c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 28
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 28
`
`B
`
`Copncatior Streit osc5 oft o5- lata oh eike dqscseisadenclsace asc loqesiaks’cedacake qegicusacelataasteaiaisocees 28
`
`Cc RRCCINNNNNoso gcne seseooaae aeadt oats vedas ands an eacany 30
`D.
`Aluminum Electrolytic Capacstors 2-022 scczcccnzacccesntnt ca eanaeentacns sccemuanegpegntusenees 32
`
`E
`
`F.
`
`Wantalor Electsolvine: ANCeUS occas coe o asco gossae 33
`
`RENE ERICHBREET aoc tinh at etal ot kn Tate eat a he oa ee ae lal ta ae 36
`
`VEL
`
`Capacitors Are Traceable Through the Chain ofDistribution.......0.0000000000....- 37
`G.
`«BAGPUAR ALTBGATING 5.5:cccccaanonsyisntasmedidasanieilesetudaoveuitugtoccedaapsntinatgeasarstaumenyetas 38
`A.
`Defendants Conspired to Unlawfully Fix and Artificially Raise the Prices of
`Flecttolytie and Filia Cariacatanec. vcscadssosccdecs even va.ssscevendgapisoahipccucesniacunsvelisowipaee 38
`
`
`
`:
`
`B.
`
`ESepineatton Tenchiys Tinea05 hie nth i gee a ieee ehaohddctaietoteieite 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitors i.icscccccvacccscscesssczasecriccessinaccvacenssscesieszes 48
`
`Tentahiny PMlectrahythe Capen i 5 sone overseer eee 49
`
`BPRISTN CGN ae snc a nda edad ec aden gs ncn Boks dng oc pov ndagese de Peon adage 49
`
`C.
`
`The Characteristics of the Electrolytic and Film Capacitor Market Render
`Collusion More Planssible, x. .iu:...5.<ccscscesnissssdesasencedsasnvesesnacadacnandverecesendedsdnrvedenainecess 50
`
`1.
`
`2,
`
`The Electrolytic and Film Capacitor Industry Has High Barriers to
`Entry. 50
`
`The DemandforElectrolytic and Film Capacitors Is Inelastic................... 53
`
`
`
`28
`LAWOFFIcEs||INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND .
`
`COTCHETT, PITRE
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`ul
`
`& MCCARTHY, LLP
`
`.
`
`;
`:
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`=
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Electrolyticarand FilmmCapacitorIndustryI:Is»Highly
`
`.
`Concentrated. .
`
`
`cecteeetsetieeeseeeeeeees D4
`
`
`
`
`Electrolytic and Film CapacitorsAAre Homogenousand
`
`
`
`Commoditized Products...
`we
`ceceeseeseeeseeseteeeseeeeees 0
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Had Ample Opportunities to Conspite.«0.0.0.0...eee 8
`
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indirect Purchasers of Capacitors Lacked Buying Powet...........................62
`
`
`
`
`
`Falling Demand for Capacitors Over Time.....0.0.0000... cece ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee O4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Demand for Capacitors in the Americas .......0.....0..0.ccceeeeeeeceeeeeee 65
`a.
`
`
`
`
`Demand for Capacitors Over Time... 2... cee eee ecee cece eenseenteeeee 66
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`Capacitor Manufacturers Had Relationships in Other Price-Fixed Markets..........67
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS COLLUDED TO KEEP THE PRICE OF ELECTROLYTIC AND FILM
`
`
`
`
`
`CAPACITORS ELEVATED DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.....000.000.0ccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee O7
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Had a Motive to Conspire...........0cccccceeee cece cee eeeeecneeneeteetenseeseeeeee O8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Price Movements ofElectrolytic and Film Capacitors DuringdltheieRespective
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class Periods Are Consistent with Collusion, Not Competition...
`ve
`71
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pricing Behavior WasInconsistent with Cost. 0.000000. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee D2
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pricing Behavior WasInconsistent with Demand.........0000.000.ee 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Conspired to Constrain Supply.......000.00..0 cece ceseeeseeeesetetseenseeeseee DD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Guilty Pleas in Related Markets o.oo .ccccccccccccceceeccceseceeecceseeeseeeesscenseesecenseenees 75
`
`
`1.
`
`
`Hitachi75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Panasonic/SANYO .............cecccecccecceseeesececeeeseeseeeeeeseeesceseceaeeeaeeseceeeneeenseeaees 75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DO NOT BAR PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS...............77
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Statute ofLimitations Did Not Begintoto Run BecausePlaintiffs Did Not and
`
`
`
`
`Could Not Discover Their Claims..
`.-
`we TT
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations ................0..00..0...........79
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`False Representations Regarding Raw Material Shortages........................80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`False Representations Regarding Production Delays.........000..... eee 81
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Conduct Involved Import Trade or Import Commerce......................84
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`lll
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`
`(Violations of Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)...0000000 coe e cee ceteeeteceeneeeneeeeeeeeneenee DT
`
`
`
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`(Violations ofthe Cartwright Act,Cal. Bus. & Prof. Codele§$16720,etseq.1)
`(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)...
`peceeseecnseeesseeeseeeeeee 98
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`(Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law,_Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, ef seq.)
`(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)eceeseeesseceseeesactesseessecesseceseeesaecesecesecteserenseeees 100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`(Violation of State Antitrust and Restraint of Trade Laws)
`
`
`
`
`
`(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) .000000..0 oe cece ceeeeeteceencteneeeesecenseenseees 102
`
`
`
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`(Violation of State Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Laws)
`
`
`
`
`
`(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) ..000000o00 occ cece ceeeeeneceeneteneeeesecenseenseees 116
`
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Cc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Conduct Had a Direct, Substantial, and Reasonably Foreseeable
`
`
`
`Effect on U.S. Domestic and Import Trade or Commerce That Gave Rise to
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Antitrust Claims ..0...0000...000cccccccecceeececeececceeeceeeeseceeneceeeeseceenseteeeseeeerseees 85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Capacitor Cartel Targeted the United States. 0.0.0.0 eeeecenee eens eens 88
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS...00..0.00.0cccccceccceceeccecceseeeceeceeceeeeetentteetsstesetetteteeeeeeeeee DL
`
`
`
`
`
`XT. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED.022.02.00cc ccc ccceeee cee cecceeeeseesceeecoceeeesecescecessteatsacesecaseetseeeseeeesaees 97
`
`
`
`
`
`XIV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF o..000.....ccccecceeccecccceccecceceeceeeeesceecessescesccecceecsecsacscneceaseteseeeseeeees 126
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND 0000.oocccccccc cece cccc cece ecee cece eeeeaeeeeeeeeeeseneceneeceeeseeeeceeeceaeseeaeeeeeeeneeseaseeeeeeeeeeenseseeeeeeee 133
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`Iv
`
`

`

`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`States, raising prices for purchasers of electrolytic and film capacitors and consumersalike.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (the
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Elna Co., Ltd., Elna America Inc., Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Co. America,
`
`
`
`
`Hitachi AIC Inc., Ltd., Ltd., Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., NEC Tokin Corp., Nichicon Corp., Nippon
`
`
`
`
`Chemi-Con Corp., United Chemi-Con, Inc., Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., NEC TOKIN Corp., NEC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TOKIN America Inc., Nichicon Corp., Nichicon America Corp., Nissei Electric Co., Ltd., Nitsuko
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronics Corp., Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corp., Panasonic Corp. of North
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`America, Rubycon Corp., Rubycon America Inc., SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., SANYO Electronic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Device (U.S.A.) Corp., Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., Soshin Electric Co., Ltd., Taitsu Corp., and
`
`
`
`Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd. (collectively, “defendants”’).
`
`
`
`
`? As Plaintiffs are in the early stages of discovery concerning the nature and scope of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electrolytic and film capacitor conspiracies, and as the Court granted the United States Department
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Justice’s motion to intervene and stayed discovery until April 15, 2015 per its October 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Minutes (ECF No. 309), Plaintiffs still have substantial discovery to conduct regarding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`defendants’ meetings, discussions, and agreements. Plaintiffs must be able to significantly advance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the inquiry into and analysis of defendants’ conspiratorial conduct before we can firmly reach
`
`
`
`conclusions regarding the nature, scope, and effects of the conspiracies. As such, while the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint currently alleges separate meetings and discussions regarding electrolytic and film
`
`
`
`
`capacitors, further discovery may reveal that there was one overarching conspiracy due to the
`
`
`
`
`overlapping defendants and customers or more than two conspiracies.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Classes” as defined below), upon personal knowledgeas to the facts pertaining to them and upon
`
`
`
`
`
`information andbelief as to all other matters, and based on the investigation of counsel, bring this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`class action for damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs demanda trial by jury,
`
`
`and allege as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This lawsuit is brought against defendants‘, the leading manufacturers of capacitors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sold in the United States, for engaging in two massive and separate conspiracies to unlawfully
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inflate, fix, raise, maintain or artificially stabilize the prices of electrolytic and film capacitors,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`respectively.2 Defendants’ conspiracies successfully targeted various industries in the United
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities in the United
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`States who purchased (a) one or moreelectrolytic capacitor(s) from a capacitor distributor and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) an electronic product not for resale which included one or moreelectrolytic capacitor(s) as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`component parts, which a defendant, its current or former subsidiary, or any of its co-conspirators
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as information and telecommunications, audiovisual, and electronic games.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sold from January 1, 2003 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of defendants’ conduct
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ceased (“Electrolytic Class Period”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs also seek to represent all persons and entities in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States who purchased (a) one or more film capacitor(s) from a capacitor distributor and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) an electronic product not for resale which included one or more film capacitor(s) as component
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parts, which a defendant, its current or former subsidiary of, or any of its co-conspirators sold from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 1, 2007 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of defendants’ conduct ceased
`
`
`
`
`(“Film Class Period”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs purchased electrolytic and film capacitors as a stand-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alone product or as a component part of an electronic product. When purchased as a stand-alone
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`product, electrolytic and film capacitors are directly traceable to the specific manufacturer. When
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purchased as part of an electronic product, electrolytic and film capacitors are discrete and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identifiable component parts that pass through the chain of distribution in substantially the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`form from defendants to consumers. A capacitor is traceable to an entity owned and/or controlled
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by a defendant becauseit bears the defendant’s markings (e.g., name, logo, series).
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 7 of 28
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`Capacitors are one of the most common electronic components in the world today.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`They store electric charge between one or more pairs of conductors separated by an insulator.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Almost all electronic products—from cellphones to personal computers to home appliances—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contain them, often hundreds of them. The three basic types of capacitors are ceramic, electrolytic,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and film, the latter two of which are the subject of Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint (“Complaint”). Electrolytic and film capacitors are widely used in a range of industries,
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`An “electrolytic capacitor” uses an electrolyte (an ionic conducting liquid) as one of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`its plates to achieve a relatively larger capacitance per unit volume. As used in this Complaint,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electrolytic capacitors include the following: circular polymer aluminum electrolytic capacitors,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rectangular polymer aluminum capacitors, rectangular polymer tantalum capacitors, non-polymer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aluminum electrolytic capacitors, and non-polymer electrolytic double-layer capacitors (““ELDC’”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Manufacturers of polymer electrolytic capacitors compete on shape (i.e., rectangular capacitor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`manufacturers compete with each other). Electrolytic capacitors can vary significantly by voltage
`
`
`
`
`
`and capacitance.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`im.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applications of circular polymer aluminum electrolytic capacitors include personal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computers (PCs), digital audiovisuals (AV), games, and industrial appliances. Applications of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rectangular polymer aluminum electrolytic capacitors include notebook PCs, tablets, digital AVs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amusement, servers, and communications. Applications of rectangular polymer tantalum capacitors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`include notebook PCs, games, cellular phones, smart phones, and digital still cameras. Applications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of non-polymer
`aluminum electrolytic
`capacitors
`include digital AV,
`information and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communications, various powersupply circuits, and inverter circuits. ELDC are best suited for the
`
`
`
`
`
`powerbackup needsofhigh reliability systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1: The SANYO defendants manufacture electrolytic capacitors, including circular
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aluminum polymercapacitors (brand name: OS-CON) andrectangular tantalum polymer
`
`
`
`capacitors (brand name: POS-CAP).
`
`
`
`OSCON|POSCAP
`
`
`
`& McCartHy, LLP
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 8 of 28
`
`¢ 2@
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A “film capacitor” uses insulating plastic film and one of two conductive matenials,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`propylene or polyester. As used in this Complaint, film capacitors include the following four
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generations: (1) film and aluminum foil capacitors, (2) film and other metal capacitors, (3) layered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capacitors, and (4) surface-mount capacitors (i.e., capacitors without leaves). Each generation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contains different types of general purpose capacitors and specific purpose capacitors.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applications of film capacitors include appliances, lighting, power supply, digital
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AV, communications, games, direct current (DC) link for inverters, snubber for inverters, in battery
`
`
`
`filters, and in electric compressors.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`& McCartTny, LLP
`
`
`
`28
`Laworricns||INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`
`Corcxerr,Prre||[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION] 4
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 9 of 28
`
`Figure 2: The Panasonic defendants manufacturefilm capacitors.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants manufacture, market, and sell electrolytic and film capacitors throughout
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and into the United States. Defendants and other co-conspirators (as yet unknown) agreed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combined, and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain or artificially stabilize prices of electrolytic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and film capacitors. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by defendants and other co-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conspirators was in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and variousstate antitrust,
`
`
`
`
`consumerprotection, and unfair competition laws.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and the Classes paid artificially inflated prices for electrolytic and film capacitors during
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the respective Class Periods and have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their businessor property.
`
`
`
`Il.
`
`
`
`
`GOVERNMENTINVESTIGATIONS
`
`
`
`13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Competition authorities
`in the United States, Asia, and Europe have been
`
`
`
`
`
`coordinating their investigations into the electrolytic and film capacitor cartels since March 2014 or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`earlier. The coordinated investigation between the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the China National Development and Reform Commission (“China NDRC”) could be a first
`
`
`for both agencies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASERPLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 11 of 28
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`to ensure supra-competitive prices for their products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Several competition authorities in Asia have already conducted dawn raids on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capacitor manufacturers. The China NDRC raided NEC TOKIN and non-defendant Taiyo Yuden?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in March 2014. The South Korea Fair Trade Commission raided a Panasonic sales office in South
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Korea in early May 2014. And the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) raided nine companies
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`suspected of forming a cartel extending overseas from Japan. These companies were Elna Co.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., NEC TOKIN Corp., Nichicon Corp.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con Corp., Panasonic Corp., Rubycon Corp., and SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 24, 2014. These companiescollectively control either a large share of the Japanese market for
`
`
`
`
`
`electrolytic capacitors or the Japanese market for film capacitors. The JFTC alleges that these
`
`
`
`
`
`companies formed cartels in Japan, China, and United States, and their sales executives and other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`officials coordinated the amount and timingofprice increases in the last several years. The JFTC
`
`
`
`
`
`stated that the conspiracies intensified after the 2008 economic crisis and again after the 2011 Great
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`East Japan Earthquake when defendants aggressively controlled supply and coordinated price hikes
`
`15.
`
`
`
`
`
`The DOJ investigation is originating out of its San Francisco office, which has been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`investigating cartels in the computer parts industry for the past decade, resulting in hundreds of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`millions of dollars in criminal fines against manufacturers of memory,
`liquid crystal displays,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`optical disc drives, and lithium-ion batteries. A capacitor manufacturer had approached the DOJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and China NDRC with news of anticompetitive conduct in the worldwide capacitor industry,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`launching what the DOJ’s Antitrust Division acknowledged as its latest international cartel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`investigation. The capacitor manufacturer also applied to the DOJ’s Corporate Leniency Program
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (“ACPERA”), which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limits the civil liability of a leniency applicant to the actual damages attributable to the entity’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conductrather than the usual joint and several and trebled damages faced byantitrust defendants.
`
`6
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Taiyo Yuden manufactures ceramic capacitors only. Plaintiffs have not namedit as a defendantin
`
`
`
`
`this Complaint but reserve the right to do so upon further investigation.
`
`

`

`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`intensity discharge ballasts conspiracies.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 12 of 28
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|The DOJ investigation into the capacitor industry stemmed from a “leniency plus”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`situation in the DOJ investigation into the automotive parts industry. A leniency plus situation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arises when a company unable to obtain leniency for one conspiracy can be given a lighter sentence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by reporting its involvement in a separate, as yet undiscovered conspiracy. Plaintiffs believe that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the leniency applicant is Panasonic Corp, which is a named defendant in three parts cases in Jn re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311 (E.D. Mich.), including Jn re Switches (Case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:13-cv-01300), In re Steering Angle Sensors (Case No. 2:13-cv-01600), and Jn re High
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intensity Discharge Ballasts (Case No. 2:13-cv-01700).
`Plaintiffs believe Panasonic Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`approached the DOJ and China NDRCaboutthe electrolytic and film capacitor conspiracies after
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the DOJ charged and penalized it for participating in the switches, steering angle sensors, and high
`
`17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Notably, the defendants’ anticompetitive behavior is the subject of a DOJ criminal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grand jury investigation. According to the Antitrust Division’s Manual, last revised in 2009, to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`institute a grand jury investigation, “staff should prepare a memorandum on behalf of the section or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`field office chief to the Director of Criminal Enforcement detailing the information forming the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`basis of the request.” Following a review of that memorandum, the request for a grand jury
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`investigation must be approved by the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division based
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on the standard that a criminal violation may have occurred. Furthermore, the fact that the DOJ
`
`
`
`
`investigation is criminal, as opposed to civil,
`is significant.
`
`
`
`
`The Manual’s “Standards for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Determining Whether to Proceed by Civil or Criminal Investigation” provides, “In general, current
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Division policy is to proceed by criminal
`investigation and prosecution in cases involving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`horizontal, per se unlawful agreements such as price fixing, bid rigging and horizontal customer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and territorial allocations.” The existence of a criminal investigation into the electrolytic and film
`
`18.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“This has the hallmarks of a major international cartel investigation,” said Philip
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Giordano, counsel at Kaye Scholer LLP and a 15-year veteran of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division
`
`
`
`
`
`(emphasis added). “The DOJ and its foreign counterparts are conducting parallel investigations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
`[REDACTED — PUBLIC VERSION]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capacitor markets therefore support the existence of the conspiraciesalleged in this Complaint.
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`& McCartuy, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`
`CoTCHETT, PITRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 13 of 28
`
` Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 346 Filed 11/14/14 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Many of the manufacturers under investigation are international conglomerates that sell into
`
`
`
`
`global markets” (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Tl.
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VEN