Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 75
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Andrew M. Purdy (State Bar No. 261912)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`Ryan J. McEwan (State Bar No. 285595)
`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
`rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Interim Direct Purchaser Class Counsel and
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`Chip-Tech, Ltd., Dependable Component Supply Corp.,
`eIQ Energy Inc. and Walker Component Group, Inc.
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`CONSOLIDATED 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
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 2 of 75
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Chip-Tech, Ltd. (“Chip-Tech”), Dependable Component Supply Corp.
`
`(“Dependable”), eIQ Energy, Inc. (“eIQ Energy”) and Walker Component Group, Inc. (“Walker,” and
`
`together with Chip-Tech, Dependable, and eIQ, “Plaintiffs”) each bring this action on behalf of itself
`
`and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated (the “Class” or the “Direct
`
`Purchaser 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
`
`Co., Ltd.; SANYO North America Corporation; NEC TOKIN Corporation; NEC TOKIN America,
`
`Inc.; KEMET Corporation; KEMET Electronics Corporation; Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation;
`
`United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi AIC Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co. America,
`
`Ltd.; Fujitsu Ltd.; Fujitsu Components America, Inc.; Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.; Nichicon
`
`Corporation; Nichicon (America) Corporation; FPCAP Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; AVX
`
`Corporation; Rubycon Corporation; Rubycon America Inc.; ELNA Co., Ltd.; ELNA America Inc.;
`
`Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; TOSHIN KOGYO Co., Ltd.; Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd.; HolyStone
`
`International; Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.; Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd.; ROHM Co., Ltd.; ROHM
`
`Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC; EPCOS AG; EPCOS Inc.; TDK-EPC Corporation; TDK U.S.A.
`
`Corporation; Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd.; Okaya Electric America Inc.; Taitsu Corporation;
`
`Taitsu America, Inc.; Shinyei Kaisha; Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd.; Shinyei Corporation of America,
`
`Inc.; Nitsuko Electronics Corporation; Nissei Electric Co., Ltd.; Soshin Electric Co., Ltd.; and Soshin
`
`Electronics of America, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege facts regarding
`
`themselves 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 class action seeks damages and injunctive relief for the collusive and
`
`concerted restraint of trade in aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors (together, “Capacitors”)
`
`orchestrated by the Defendants—all of which are leading manufacturers and direct competitors in the
`
`global Capacitors industry—during the period from no later than January 1, 2003 to present (the “Class
`
`Period”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED 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
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 75
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Capacitors are one of the fundamental components found in electrical circuits. All
`
`electronic devices in common use today—from the cheapest household appliances to personal
`
`computers to multi-million dollar computerized machinery—employ various electrical circuits working
`
`in concert to perform their functions. By electrical current (i.e., the aggregate effect of moving electrical
`
`charge) 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 other tasks can be executed.
`3.
`
`Without the flow of electrical current, circuit boards—as well as the electronic devices
`
`that contain them—will not operate. 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 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 of electrical
`
`devices have sufficiently available and immediately dischargeable electrical charge to perform when
`
`commanded to do so.
`4.
`
`As society’s dependence on and consumption of technology has grown, so too has the
`
`demand of electronic device manufacturers for the components. Given that capacitors are fundamental
`
`to the operation of practically all electronic devices, the market for capacitors is enormous. Capacitors
`
`are commodity products sold in large volumes. Indeed, global revenues for all manufacturers in the
`
`capacitor industry in 2013 totaled approximately $16 billion based on the sales of trillions of capacitors.
`
`Industry analysts estimate that global revenues from the sale of capacitors will reach over $18 billion for
`
`the fiscal year 2014 and over $20 billion by 2016.
`5.
`
`Capacitors, however, tend to be relatively inexpensive on a per unit basis. The vast
`
`majority of Capacitors cost well under a dollar per unit, and typically cost as low as a fraction of a cent.
`
`Accordingly, the cost of Capacitors is usually only a relatively small (albeit potentially significant) part of
`
`the overall cost of the products containing them.
`6.
`
`The multi-billion dollar market for capacitors is susceptible to anticompetitive
`
`manipulation. Given, as alleged in detail below, the significantly high barriers to entering the already
`
`mature and consolidation-prone capacitors manufacturing industry and achieving the large volume of
`
`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
`
`
`2
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 4 of 75
`
`
`
`sales required to reach sufficient economies of scale and profitability on a per unit basis, global sales of
`
`capacitors are dominated by a limited number of large manufacturers. These would-be competitors—
`
`specifically the Defendants named herein—sell mutually interchangeable commoditized products and
`
`adjust the prices and market availability of their products in concert and based on an overarching
`
`agreement to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices as described in detail below. These facts
`
`indicate that competition between the global sellers of aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors has been
`
`suppressed.
`7.
`
`Capacitors of like capacitance, dielectric and form factor are generally mutually
`
`interchangeable. Price is therefore the chief differentiation among these products for purchasers.
`
`Accordingly, any agreement among Capacitors manufacturers to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices,
`
`or to reduce the supply of Capacitors, is highly likely to be effective in artificially inflating prices above
`
`those that would prevail in a competitive market to the detriment of purchasers both worldwide and in
`
`the United States.
`8.
`
`The threat of anticompetitive manipulation for the sales of aluminum, tantalum and film
`
`capacitors is not a hypothetical concern. Defendant Panasonic Corporation, on behalf of itself and its
`
`wholly owned subsidiaries (Panasonic Corporation of North America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., and
`
`SANYO North America Corporation), has admitted to the United States Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”) that Defendants engaged in price fixing beginning no later than, January 1, 2003, and
`
`Defendants’ cartel activities were undertaken for the purpose of artificially maintaining and inflating
`
`prices of aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors sold to United States purchasers and purchasers
`
`worldwide.
`9.
`
`Defendants took these unlawful steps because: (1) prior to the outset of the conspiracy,
`
`competition was reducing margins on Capacitors; and (2) demand for certain types of their respective
`
`Capacitors began to wane starting in the early 2000s.
`10.
`
`To bolster the profitability of their respective Capacitors sales, and to slow, negate and
`
`reverse the impact on price caused by declining demand, Defendants agreed prior to the beginning of
`
`the Class Period to curtail price competition among themselves for their respective mutually
`
`interchangeable aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors.
`
`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
`
`
`3
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 5 of 75
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Given the weak demand for aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors the Defendants
`
`manufactured and the decline in sales and profits they each were facing across their respective
`
`Capacitors product lines, Defendants further agreed to collusively set prices for all the Capacitors they
`
`produce.
`12.
`
`Accordingly, beginning no later than January 1, 2003, Defendants conspired by directly
`
`and indirectly communicating with each other to implement and effectuate an overarching scheme to
`
`control and set the prices of their aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors sold to United States
`
`purchasers and purchasers worldwide. Defendants also agreed, as part of the cartel, to combine and
`
`perform the various acts necessary to achieve the anticompetitive purposes of this scheme, as well as to
`
`conceal their activity from public view and regulatory oversight.
`13.
`
`The Defendants’ conspiracy was furthered and facilitated by a course of anticompetitive
`
`conduct and overt acts, such as making numerous agreements (both written and oral) and reaching
`
`understandings among themselves—largely developed during regular monthly, annual and/or bi-annual
`
`meetings among themselves throughout the Class Period—that they would in concert fix, raise,
`
`maintain and stabilize prices for aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors.
`14.
`
`Defendants also agreed to restrain their respective Capacitors manufacturing output
`
`through extending product lead times and other subterfuge.
`15.
`
`As part of the conspiracy alleged herein, and to assist in achieving its ends, Defendants
`
`exchanged amongst themselves nonpublic and commercially sensitive information concerning, among
`
`other things, purchaser-specific Capacitors pricing requests, current industry-specific Capacitors
`
`pricing requests, current and future Capacitors pricing intentions, timing of pricing changes, production
`
`capacity, costs, availability and cost of raw materials, product distribution, and other data that
`
`Defendants used to assist in implementation and enforcement of their conspiracy.
`16.
`
`Defendants concealed their anticompetitive and unlawful conduct from the public and
`
`their customers, including Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Class, from the inception of the
`
`conspiracy until the spring of 2014, when law enforcement and competition authorities around the globe
`
`first publicly acknowledged their respective investigations into anticompetitive conduct in the capacitors
`
`industry.
`
`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
`
`
`4
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 6 of 75
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Defendants’ cartel has been successful in achieving the anticompetitive and unlawful
`
`ends for which it was formed. Through their concerted actions, Defendants—the dominant players in
`
`the global and U.S. markets for aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors—fixed, raised, maintained
`
`and/or stabilized prices of Capacitors during the entirety of the time that the Defendants’ conspiracy
`
`has existed (the “Conspiracy Period”). Defendants were effective in moderating, negating and
`
`reversing the normal competitive pressures on prices for Capacitors caused by price competition,
`
`reduction of demand, technological change and oversupply.
`18.
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct proximately caused the increase
`
`and/or slowed the decrease of prices for their Capacitors sold to United States and worldwide
`
`purchasers during the Class Period.
`19.
`
`As a result, Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Class paid artificially inflated prices for
`
`Capacitors. By paying higher prices for Capacitors than those that would have prevailed in a
`
`competitive market, Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Class have been injured in their business and
`
`property and continue to suffer such injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf of the Direct
`
`Purchaser 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.
`21.
`
`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).
`22.
`
`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 Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, a substantial portion of the affected
`
`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, and/or transacts business in this District.
`23.
`
`In addition, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division is conducting an investigation into the
`
`capacitors industry out of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Northern California.
`
`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
`
`
`5
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 7 of 75
`
`
`
`On information and belief, based on the DOJ’s past practice with regard to similar antitrust
`
`investigations, 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 its investigation and ultimately to decide
`
`on whether to indict any capacitors manufacturers (such as one or more of the Defendants in this
`
`antitrust class action) criminally. The DOJ’s San Francisco-based capacitors industry investigation and
`
`the likely empanelment of a grand jury in this District both confirm the propriety of the Northern
`
`District of California as the venue for this antitrust class action.
`24.
`
`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 Plaintiffs and members of the Direct
`
`Purchaser Class in counties located within the Division.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Chip-Tech, Ltd. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 6 Dubon Court, Farmingdale, New York 11735. Chip-Tech directly purchased Capacitors
`
`from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered injury as a result of Defendants’
`
`anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Dependable Component Supply Corporation is a Florida corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 1003 East Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442.
`
`Dependable directly purchased Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and
`
`has suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`27.
`
`Plaintiff eIQ Energy, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`6389 San Ignacio Avenue, San Jose, California 95119. eIQ Energy directly purchased certain types of
`
`Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered injury as a result of
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Walker Component Group, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 420 East 58th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80216. Walker directly purchased
`
`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
`
`
`6
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 8 of 75
`
`
`
`Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered injury as a result of
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`
`Defendants
`
`Panasonic/SANYO
`29. 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.
`
`(“Matsushita”). During the Class Period, Matsushita and Panasonic (together, “Panasonic”)
`
`manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and/or tantalum and/or film capacitors either directly or
`
`through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to United States purchasers.
`30. Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America (“PCNA”), a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Panasonic, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at Two
`
`Riverfront Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 07102. During the Class Period, PCNA—either directly or
`
`through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates (including, without limitation, Panasonic
`
`Industrial Sales Company)—sold and distributed to United States purchasers aluminum and/or
`
`tantalum and/or film capacitors manufactured by business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates of its
`
`corporate parent, Panasonic.
`31.
`
`Defendant SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. (“SANYO”), a Japanese corporation, is, as of
`
`December 2009, a wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic, 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 manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and/or tantalum capacitors, either directly or
`
`through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to United States purchasers. Prior to its
`
`acquisition by Panasonic in December 2009, SANYO had no corporate affiliation with Panasonic or its
`
`business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates.
`32.
`
`Defendant SANYO North America Corporation (“SANYO NA”), a Delaware
`
`corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of SANYO, with its principal place of business located at 2055
`
`Sanyo Avenue, San Diego, California 92154. During the Class Period, SANYO NA—either directly or
`
`through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates—sold and distributed to United States
`
`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
`
`
`7
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 9 of 75
`
`
`
`purchasers aluminum and/or tantalum capacitors manufactured by business units, subsidiaries, agents
`
`or affiliates of its corporate parent, SANYO.
`33.
`
`Defendants Panasonic and PCNA are together referred to herein as the “Panasonic
`
`Defendants.” Defendants SANYO and SANYO NA are together referred to herein as the “SANYO
`
`Defendants,” and, together with the Panasonic Defendants, the entities are referred to herein as
`
`“Panasonic/SANYO.”
`
`NEC TOKIN Defendants
`34.
`
`Defendant NEC TOKIN Corporation (“NEC TOKIN”), a Japanese company currently
`
`partially owned by both Defendant KEMET Electronics Corporation and non-party NEC Corporation,
`
`has 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 manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum
`
`and/or tantalum capacitors either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates
`
`to United States purchasers.
`35.
`
`Defendant NEC TOKIN America, Inc. (“NEC TOKIN America”), a California
`
`corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC TOKIN 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—either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates—sold and
`
`distributed to United States purchasers aluminum and/or tantalum capacitors manufactured by business
`
`units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates of its corporate parent, NEC TOKIN.
`36.
`
`Defendants NEC TOKIN and NEC TOKIN America are together referred to herein as
`
`the “NEC TOKIN Defendants.”
`
`KEMET Defendants
`37.
`
`Defendant KEMET Corporation (“KEMET”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 2835 Kemet Way, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681. During the
`
`Class Period, KEMET manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and/or tantalum and/or film
`
`capacitors either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates, to United States
`
`purchasers.
`
`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
`
`
`8
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 10 of 75
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Defendant KEMET Electronics Corporation (“KEC”), a Delaware corporation, is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of KEMET with its principal place of business located at 2835 Kemet Way,
`
`Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681. During the Class Period, KEC—either directly or through its
`
`business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates—sold and distributed to United States purchasers
`
`aluminum and/or tantalum and/or film capacitors manufactured by its own business units, subsidiaries,
`
`agents or affiliates, or those of its corporate parent, KEMET.
`39.
`
`On or about March 12, 2012, KEC publicly announced that it had entered into a Stock
`
`Purchase Agreement with NEC TOKIN and non-party NEC Corporation in which it agreed to
`
`purchase a 34% economic interest in NEC TOKIN (the remainder being held by NEC Corporation) that
`
`affords KEC a 51% voting interest in the company, and thus the right to appoint four of the seven
`
`members on NEC TOKIN’s board of directors. KEC also entered into an Option Agreement with
`
`NEC TOKIN and NEC Corporation that provided KEC with two call options that, if exercised, would
`
`allow it to purchase all of NEC Corporation’s economic interests and voting rights in NEC TOKIN,
`
`thereby effecting KEC’s complete acquisition of NEC TOKIN.
`40. KEC’s interest in NEC TOKIN provided KEC the opportunity to sell NEC TOKIN
`
`capacitors, among other things, directly to United States purchasers. For example, KEC was able to
`
`ship NEC TOKIN-manufactured tantalum capacitors directly from NEC TOKIN factories, and these
`
`capacitors were sold using KEMET part numbers, labeled with KEMET labels, and invoiced through
`
`KEMET. By January 2014, KEC publicly announced that it had “completed the integration of
`
`advanced components from NEC TOKIN” into its sales structure, thereby giving KEC the ability to
`
`sell NEC TOKIN’s aluminum and/or tantalum capacitors directly to KEC’s customers.
`41.
`
`Accordingly, in addition to selling to United States purchasers its own aluminum and/or
`
`tantalum and/or film capacitors manufactured by certain of its own business units, subsidiaries, agents
`
`or affiliates or those of its corporate parent, KEMET, KEC has, since early 2012, sold and distributed
`
`NEC TOKIN’s aluminum and/or tantalum capacitors, directly or through its business units,
`
`subsidiaries, agents or affiliates, to United States purchasers.
`42. Having acquired and maintained a controlling majority voting interest in NEC TOKIN,
`
`KEMET has, since at least March 2012, had the authority to manage and operate NEC TOKIN,
`
`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
`
`
`9
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 11 of 75
`
`
`
`including but not limited to its corporate strategy and its Capacitor business. During the Class Period,
`
`KEMET became aware of the cartel and NEC TOKIN’s participation in it. From 2012 to present,
`
`NEC TOKIN—while under KEMET’s control—has continued to participate in the cartel’s collusive
`
`actions to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for Capacitors. During this period, neither the
`
`managing officers or directors of KEMET nor the managing officers or directors of NEC TOKIN
`
`instructed or directed NEC TOKIN to withdraw from Defendants’ price fixing cartel and the
`
`conspiracy. By acquiescing in NEC TOKIN’s continued cartel activity, as well as failing to disclose or
`
`otherwise concealing NEC TOKIN’s cartel activity, failing to cause NEC TOKIN to terminate its
`
`cartel activity and failing to cause NEC TOKIN to withdraw from the cartel, KEMET joined and
`
`actively participated in Defendants’ conspiracy and committed overt acts in furtherance of the
`
`conspiracy.
`43.
`
`Defendants.”
`
`Defendants KEMET and KEC are together referred to herein as the “KEMET
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con Defendants
`44. Defendant Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation (“Nippon Chemi-Con”) 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 manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum
`
`and/or film capacitors either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to
`
`United States purchasers.
`45.
`
`Defendant United Chemi-Con Corporation (“UCC”), an Illinois Corporation, is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Nippon Chemi-Con with its principal place of business located at 9801 West
`
`Higgins Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018. During the Class Period, UCC—either directly or through
`
`certain of its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates, or those of its corporate parent, Nippon
`
`Chemi-Con—manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum and/or film capacitors to United States
`
`purchasers.
`46. Defendants Nippon Chemi-Con and UCC are together referred to herein as the
`
`“Nippon Chemi-Con Defendants.”
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`10
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 12 of 75
`
`
`
`Hitachi Chemical Defendants
`47.
`
`Defendant Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Hitachi Chemical”), 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 manufactured, sold, and distributed
`
`aluminum and/or tantalum and/or film capacitors either directly or through its business units,
`
`subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to United States purchasers.
`48. Defendant Hitachi AIC Inc. (“Hitachi AIC”), a Japanese corporation, is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Hitachi Chemical with its principal place of business located at 1065, Kugeta, Moka-Shi
`
`Tochigi 321-4521, Japan. During the Class Period, Hitachi AIC—either directly or through its
`
`divisions, business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates—sold and distributed to United States
`
`purchasers aluminum and/or tantalum and/or film capacitors manufactured by its own business units,
`
`subsidiaries, agents or affiliates, or those of its corporate parent, Hitachi Chemical.
`49.
`
`In or about December 2009, Hitachi AIC sold its tantalum and niobium capacitors
`
`division to Defendant Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd. The acquisition was completed by or about April
`
`1, 2010, and the tantalum and niobium capacitors division was renamed Holy Stone Polytech Co., Ltd.,
`
`a Japanese corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd. To the extent
`
`that any of the assets or liabilities of Hitachi AIC’s tantalum and niobium capacitors division remain in
`
`whole or in part with Hitachi AIC subsequent to the tantalum and niobium capacitors division’s sale to
`
`Holy Stone, Plaintiffs intend to hold Hitachi AIC liable for any of this business division’s violations of
`
`Sherman Act § 1 that occurred during the Class Period.
`50. Defendant Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd. (“Hitachi Chemical America”), a New
`
`York corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi Chemical with its principal place of business
`
`located at 10080 North Wolfe Road, Suite SW3-200, Cupertino, California 95014. During the Class
`
`Period, Hitachi Chemical America—either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or
`
`affiliates—sold and distributed to United States purchasers aluminum and/or tantalum capacitors
`
`manufactured by business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates of its corporate parent, Hitachi
`
`Chemical (including, without limitation, Hitachi AIC).
`
`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
`
`
`11
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 401 Filed 12/04/14 Page 13 of 75
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Defendants Hitachi Chemical, Hitachi AIC and Hitachi Chemical America are together
`
`referred to herein as the “Hitachi Chemical Defendants.”
`
`Fujitsu Defendants
`52.
`
`Defendant Fujitsu Ltd. (“Fujitsu”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at Shiodome City Center, 1-5-2 Higashi-Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-7123, Japan.
`
`During the Class Period, Fujitsu manufactured, sold, and distributed aluminum and/or tantalum and/or
`
`film capacitors either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to United
`
`States purchasers.
`53.
`
`Fujitsu, either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates
`
`(including, without limitation, the now-dissolved Fujitsu Media Devices, Ltd. (“FMD”) for which
`
`Fujitsu and/or certain of its business units, subsidiaries or affiliates is a successor in interest),
`
`manufactured, sold and distributed conductive polymer aluminum solid electrolytic capacitors until in
`
`or about October 2008. After October 2008, the business unit responsible for manufacturing, selling
`
`and distributing these types of capacitors (Fujitsu Media Devices (Suzhou) Ltd. (“FMD Suzhou”)) was
`
`acquired in whole by Defendant Nichicon Corporation. To the extent that the assets and liabilities of
`
`FMD Suzhou remain in whole or in part with Fujitsu subsequent to FMD Suzhou’s sale to Nichicon,
`
`Plaintiffs intend to hold Fujitsu liable for any of FMD Suzhou’s violations of Sherman Act § 1 that
`
`occurred during the Class Period.
`54.
`
`Defendant Fujitsu Components America, Inc. (“Fujitsu Components America”), a
`
`California corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fujitsu with its principal place of business
`
`located at 250 East Caribbean Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94089. During the Class Period, Fujitsu
`
`Components America—either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates—
`
`sold and distributed to United States purchasers aluminum and/or tantalum and/or film capacitors
`
`manufactured by business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates of its corporate parent, Fujitsu.
`55.
`
`Defendant Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. (“Fujitsu Semicon America”), a
`
`California corporation, is a wholly owned subsid