Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8191 Page 1 of 84
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`
`CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`PRODUCT(S):
`
`BEARINGS
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`ALL END-PAYOR ACTIONS
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8192 Page 2 of 84
`
`Plaintiffs Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Erica J. Shoaf, Tom Halverson, Sophie O'Keefe-
`
`Zelman, Stephanie Petras, Melissa Barron, John W. Hollingsworth, Meetesh Shah, Michael J.
`
`Tracy, Jane Taylor, Keith Uehara, Jennifer Chase, Darrel Senior, James E. Marean, Ron Blau,
`
`Roger D. Olson, Nilsa Mercado, Darcy C. Sherman, David Bernstein, Ellis Winton McInnis, IV,
`
`Thomas N. Wilson, Lauren C. Primos, Robert P. Klinger, Jessica DeCastro, Lori Curtis,
`
`Virginia Pueringer, Nathan Croom, Richard Stoehr, Edward T. Muscara, Michael Wick, Tenisha
`
`Burgos, Jason Grala, Kathleen A. Tawney, Kelly Klosterman, Kent Busek, Cindy Prince, Paul
`
`Gustafson, France H. Gammell-Roach, William Dale Picotte, Phillip G. Young, Jesse Powell,
`
`Alena Farrell, Jane FitzGerald, Arthur Stukey, Janne Rice, Robert M. Rice, Jr., Stacey R.
`
`Nickell, Carol Ann Kashishian (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`
`situated (the “Classes” as defined below), upon personal knowledge as to the facts pertaining to
`
`themselves and upon information and belief as to all other matters, 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, demand a
`
`trial by jury, and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit is brought as a proposed class action against Defendants, suppliers
`
`of Automotive Bearings (defined below) globally and in the United States, for engaging in a
`
`massive conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the prices of these products.
`
`Defendants’ conspiracy successfully targeted the long-struggling United States automotive
`
`industry, raising prices for car manufacturers and purchasers alike.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities that purchased or leased new
`
`motor vehicles containing Automotive Bearings or who purchased replacement Automotive
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8193 Page 3 of 84
`
`Bearings for their motor vehicles during the period from and including January 1, 2004 through
`
`such time as the anticompetitive effects of Defendants’ conduct ceased (the “Class Period”).
`
`3.
`
`“Automotive Bearings” are devices in an automotive vehicle used to position,
`
`hold and guide moving parts, as well as to reduce friction between moving and fixed parts.
`
`Automotive Bearings are located throughout an automotive vehicle. “Automotive Bearings”
`
`include the following devices used in automotive vehicles: ball bearings, tapered roller
`
`bearings, roller bearings, mounted bearings, and parts and components for ball and roller
`
`bearings.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants JTEKT Corporation, Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., NSK Ltd., Schaeffler
`
`AG, AB SKF, NTN Corporation and NTN USA Corporation (all as defined below, and
`
`collectively “Defendants”) manufacture, market, and sell Automotive Bearings throughout the
`
`United States. The manufacture and sale of Automotive Bearings is a multi-billion dollar
`
`industry.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants and their co-conspirators (as yet unknown) agreed, combined, and
`
`conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or artificially stabilize prices of Automotive Bearings.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct is also the subject of a global criminal
`
`investigation being conducted by competition authorities in the United States, the European
`
`Union, Canada and Japan.
`
`7.
`
`As part of its criminal investigation, the United States Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”) is seeking information about anticompetitive conduct in the market for Automotive
`
`Bearings, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has participated in raids, pursuant to
`
`search warrants, carried out in at least some of the Defendants’ offices in connection with a
`
`probe into the automotive industry. The European Commission Competition Authority (“EC”)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8194 Page 4 of 84
`
`has also conducted dawn raids at the European offices of several of the Defendants. The Japan
`
`Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) has confirmed that Defendants NSK Ltd., NTN Corporation,
`
`JTEKT Corporation, and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. are being investigated for possible
`
`participation in an unlawful price-fixing cartel. The JFTC began its investigation in July 2011
`
`after JTEKT Corporation reported the cartel to the JFTC so that it would be given leniency
`
`treatment. Officials of NSK Ltd. and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. have also admitted their roles in
`
`the cartel and, according to recent news reports, some NTN Corporation officials have begun
`
`to make statements, during voluntary questioning by Tokyo prosecutors, admitting their
`
`involvement in fixing prices for Automotive Bearings.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants participated in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and
`
`eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix,
`
`stabilize, and maintain the prices of, Automotive Bearings sold to automobile manufacturers in
`
`the United States. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by Defendants was in
`
`unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman
`
`Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.
`
`9.
`
`As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein,
`
`Plaintiffs and the Classes paid artificially inflated prices for Automotive Bearings during the
`
`Class Period and have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business or property.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26)
`
`to secure equitable and injunctive relief against Defendants for violating Section 1 of the
`
`Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). Plaintiffs also assert claims for actual and exemplary damages
`
`pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and seek to obtain
`
`restitution, recover damages and secure other relief against Defendants for violation of those
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8195 Page 5 of 84
`
`state laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under
`
`federal and state law.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
`
`Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26), Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1),
`
`and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1337.
`
`12.
`
`This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), in that this is a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds
`
`the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and in which some members of the
`
`proposed Classes are citizens of a state different from some Defendants.
`
`13.
`
`This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims asserted
`
`herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are so related to the claims asserted in this
`
`action over which the court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
`
`controversy.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this 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 discussed below has been carried out in this District, and one or
`
`more of the Defendants reside, are licensed to do business in, are doing business in, had agents
`
`in, or are found or transact business in this District.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has in personam jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because
`
`each Defendant, either directly or through the ownership and/or control of its United States
`
`subsidiaries, inter alia: (a) transacted business in the United States, including in this District;
`
`(b) directly or indirectly sold or marketed substantial quantities of Automotive Bearings
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8196 Page 6 of 84
`
`throughout the United States, including in this District; (c) had substantial aggregate contacts
`
`with the United States as a whole, including in this District; or (d) were engaged in an illegal
`
`price-fixing conspiracy that was directed at, and had a direct, substantial, reasonably
`
`foreseeable and intended effect of causing injury to the business or property of persons and
`
`entities residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including in this
`
`District. Defendants also conduct business throughout the United States, including in this
`
`District, and they have purposefully availed themselves of the laws of the United States.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside of the United States that
`
`caused direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable and intended anticompetitive effects upon
`
`interstate commerce within the United States.
`
`17.
`
`The activities of Defendants and their co-conspirators were within the flow of,
`
`were intended to, and did have, a substantial effect on interstate commerce of the United
`
`States. Defendants’ products are sold in the flow of interstate commerce.
`
`18.
`
`Automotive Bearings manufactured abroad by Defendants and sold for use in
`
`automobiles either manufactured in the United States or manufactured abroad and sold in the
`
`United States are goods brought into the United States for sale, and therefore constitute import
`
`commerce. To the extent any Automotive Bearings are purchased in the United States, and
`
`such Automotive Bearings do not constitute import commerce, Defendants’ unlawful activities
`
`with respect thereto, as more fully alleged herein during the Class Period, had, and continue to
`
`have, a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on United States commerce. The
`
`anticompetitive conduct, and its effect on United States commerce described herein,
`
`proximately caused antitrust injury to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes in the United
`
`States.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8197 Page 7 of 84
`
`19.
`
`By reason of the unlawful activities hereinafter alleged, Defendants
`
`substantially affected commerce throughout the United States, causing injury to Plaintiffs and
`
`members of the Classes. Defendants, directly and through their agents, engaged in a
`
`conspiracy affecting all states, to fix or inflate prices of Automotive Bearings, which
`
`unreasonably restrained trade and adversely affected the market for Automotive Bearings.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely affected
`
`persons in the United States who purchased Automotive Bearings for personal use and not for
`
`resale, including Plaintiffs and members of the Classes.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Rebecca Lynn Morrow is an Arizona resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff Erica J. Shoaf is an Arizona resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Tom Halverson is an Arizona resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Sophie O'Keefe-Zelman is an Arizona resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Stephanie Petras is an Arizona resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Melissa Barron is a California resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff John W. Hollingsworth is a California resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8198 Page 8 of 84
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Meetesh Shah is a California resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Michael J. Tracy is a Florida resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Jane Taylor is a Hawaii resident who purchased Automotive Bearings
`
`indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Keith Uehara is a Hawaii resident who purchased Automotive Bearings
`
`indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Chase is an Iowa resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Darrel Senior is a Kansas resident who purchased Automotive Bearings
`
`indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff James E. Marean is a Maine resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Ron Blau is a Massachusetts resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Roger D. Olson is a Michigan resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Nilsa Mercado is a Michigan resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Darcy C. Sherman is a Minnesota resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8199 Page 9 of 84
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff David Bernstein is a Minnesota resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Ellis Winton McInnis, IV is a Mississippi resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Thomas N. Wilson is a Mississippi resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Lauren C. Primos is a Mississippi resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Robert P. Klinger is a Missouri resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Jessica DeCastro is a Missouri resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff Lori Curtis is a Missouri resident who purchased Automotive Bearings
`
`indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff Virginia Pueringer is a Montana resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Nathan Croom is a Nebraska resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Richard Stoehr is a Nevada resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff Edward T. Muscara is a New Jersey resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8200 Page 10 of 84
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Michael Wick is a New Mexico resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff Tenisha Burgos is a New York resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff Jason Grala is a New York resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff Kathleen A. Tawney is a North Carolina resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff Kelly Klosterman is a North Dakota resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff Kent Busek is a North Dakota resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff Cindy Prince is an Oregon resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Paul Gustafson is an Oregon resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff France H. Gammell-Roach is a Rhode Island resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff William Dale Picotte is a South Dakota resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff Phillip G. Young is a Tennessee resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8201 Page 11 of 84
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff Jesse Powell is a Utah resident who purchased Automotive Bearings
`
`indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff Alena Farrell is a Vermont resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff Jane FitzGerald is a Vermont resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff Arthur Stukey is a Vermont resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff Janne Rice is a West Virginia resident who purchased Automotive
`
`Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff Robert M. Rice, Jr. is a West Virginia resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff Stacey R. Nickell is a West Virginia resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff Carol Ann Kashishian is a Wisconsin resident who purchased
`
`Automotive Bearings indirectly from one or more Defendants.
`
`JTEKT Defendants
`
`Defendants
`
`69.
`
`Defendant JTEKT Corporation (“JTEKT”) is a Japanese corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. JTEKT— directly and/or through its wholly
`
`owned and/or controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive
`
`Bearings that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during
`
`the Class Period.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8202 Page 12 of 84
`
`70.
`
`Defendant Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (“Koyo”) is a South Carolina
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Westlake, Ohio. It is a subsidiary of, and
`
`wholly-owned or controlled by, its parent, JTEKT. Defendant Koyo sold Automotive Bearings
`
`that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period.
`
`During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction
`
`of JTEKT.
`
`71.
`
`JTEKT and Koyo also share and have shared numerous executives. Hiroyuki
`
`Miyazaki, an executive director at JTEKT is also a Director at Koyo. Noriya Murase, a Senior
`
`Executive Director at JTEKT is the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Koyo.
`
`72.
`
`Defendants JTEKT and Koyo shall collectively be referred to herein as the
`
`“JTEKT Defendants” or “JTEKT”.
`
`Nachi Defendants
`
`73.
`
`Defendant Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (“Nachi”) is a Japanese corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Toyama, Japan. Nachi— directly and/or through its wholly
`
`owned and/or controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive
`
`Bearings that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the
`
`Class Period.
`
`74.
`
`Defendant Nachi America Inc. (“Nachi America”) is an Indiana corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Greenwood, Indiana. It is a subsidiary of, and wholly-
`
`owned or controlled by, its parent, Nachi-Fujikoshi. Defendant Nachi America sold
`
`Automotive Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this District,
`
`during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under
`
`the control and direction of Nachi-Fujikoshi.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8203 Page 13 of 84
`
`75.
`
`Nachi and Nachi America also share and have shared numerous executives.
`
`Toru Inoue, a corporate officer at Nachi, is listed in its 2013 Company Profile as the President
`
`of Nachi America, and “[i]n Charge of North & Central America.” Nobuo Segawa, a former
`
`director at Nachi is also a former President of Nachi America. Makoto Sasaki, a Managing
`
`Director and General Manager of Sales Strategy of Nachi is the former Chairman of the Board
`
`of Nachi America.
`
`76.
`
`Nachi America is referred to in Nachi’s 2013 Annual Report as one of its “Sales
`
`Offices.” Nachi’s 2013 report also states that one of its management policies is “creating
`
`markets in Japan, Europe, and the USA as new volume zones." Nachi’s company profile
`
`indicates that it has been “marketing with large OEM customers . . . in America” since 1955.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants Nachi and Nachi America shall collectively be referred to herein as
`
`the “Nachi Defendants” or “Nachi”.
`
`NSK Defendants
`
`78.
`
`Defendant NSK Ltd. (“NSK”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in Tokyo, Japan. NSK— directly and/or through its wholly owned and/or
`
`controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Bearings that were
`
`purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period.
`
`79.
`
`Defendant NSK Americas, Inc. (“NSK Americas”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of, and wholly
`
`owned or controlled by, its parent, NSK. Defendant NSK Americas sold Automotive Bearings
`
`that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period.
`
`During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction
`
`of NSK.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8204 Page 14 of 84
`
`80.
`
`NSK’s annual report sets forth aggregate financials for all of the NSK entities.
`
`Sales are reported by the sectors the entities supply, like the automotive sector, rather than by
`
`entity.
`
`81.
`
`NSK’s 2008 report describes its performance in each of its markets. In doing so
`
`it sets forth one reason for decreased sales in the U.S. “demand in the U.S. for minivans
`
`declined, and total sales was flat in the Americas, year-on-year.” That report also lists one of
`
`NSK’s concerns as “a weak U.S. dollar.”
`
`82.
`
`NSK and NSK Americas have also shared numerous executives. Bernard
`
`Lindsay served as COO for NSK Americas and then as Chief Executive Officer, CEO, and
`
`Vice President of NSK. Masahide Matsubara, a senior Vice President at NSK, is the former
`
`Chief Executive Officer of NSK Americas.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants NSK and NSK Americas shall collectively be referred to herein as
`
`the “NSK Defendants” or “NSK”.
`
`Schaeffler Defendants
`
`84.
`
`Defendant Schaeffler AG (“Schaeffler”) is a German corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Herzogenaurach, Germany. Schaeffler— directly and/or through
`
`its wholly owned and/or controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold
`
`Automotive Bearings that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this
`
`district, during the Class Period.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant Schaeffler Group USA Inc. (“Schaeffler USA”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Mill, South Carolina. It is a subsidiary
`
`of, and wholly-owned or controlled by, its parent, Schaeffler. Defendant Schaeffler USA sold
`
`Automotive Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this District,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8205 Page 15 of 84
`
`during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under
`
`the control and direction of Schaeffler.
`
`86.
`
`Schaeffler USA is described on the Schaeffler website as one of Schaeffler’s
`
`“Worldwide Locations.”
`
`87.
`
`Schaeffler’s Q1 Report describes one of the “primary dampers of economic
`
`growth” as “the restrictive spending policy in the U.S.”
`
`88.
`
`Schaeffler USA and Schaeffler have shared numerous executives. Klaus
`
`Rosenfeld, the Chief Financial Officer and Member of the Executive Manager Board of
`
`Schaeffler is also the Chief Financial Officer of Schaeffler USA. Dr. Jürgen M. Geissenger is
`
`the CEO of both Schaeffler USA and Schaeffler. Georg F.W. Schaeffler is a Board Member at
`
`both Schaeffler and Schaeffler USA.
`
`89.
`
`Defendants Schaeffler and Schaeffler USA shall collectively be referred to
`
`herein as the “Schaeffler Defendants” or “Schaeffler”.
`
`SKF Defendants
`
`90.
`
`Defendant AB SKF (“SKF”) is a Swedish corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Göteborg, Sweden. SKF—directly and/or through its wholly owned and/or
`
`controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Bearings that were
`
`purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period.
`
`91.
`
`Defendant SKF USA, Inc. (“SKF USA”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. It is a subsidiary of, and wholly-owned
`
`or controlled by, its parent, SKF. Defendant SKF USA sold Automotive Bearings that were
`
`purchased in the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period. During the
`
`Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of SKF.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8206 Page 16 of 84
`
`92.
`
`SKF and SKF USA have also shared numerous executives. Tom Johnstone, the
`
`Chief Executive Officer and President at SKF also served as Co-President and Chief Executive
`
`Officer as well as a Director at SKF USA. Henrik Lange, the Executive Vice President and
`
`Chief Financial Officer of SKF and previously served as President of the Industrial Division at
`
`SKF USA. Poul Jeppesen, the Chief Executive Officer and President of USA Operations at
`
`SKF is also the as Chief Executive Officer of SKF USA.
`
`93.
`
`SKF reports its sales by business segment, such as the Automotive segment
`
`rather than by subsidiary. The sales of SKF USA are not separately reported in SKF’s Annual
`
`report; rather, automotive OEM sales are reported as part of the Automotive segment. The
`
`Automotive segment president, Tom Johnstone, is located at SKF, in Goteborg.
`
`94.
`
`Defendants SKF and SKF USA shall collectively be referred to herein as the
`
`“SKF Defendants” or “SKF”.
`
`NTN Defendants
`
`95.
`
`Defendant NTN Corporation (“NTN”) is a Japanese corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. NTN — directly and/or through its wholly owned
`
`and/or controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Bearings that
`
`were purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period.
`
`96.
`
`Defendant NTN USA Corporation (“NTN USA”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Mount Prospect, Illinois. NTN USA—directly and/or
`
`through its wholly owned and/or controlled subsidiaries—manufactured, marketed and/or sold
`
`Automotive Bearings that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this
`
`District, during the Class Period.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8207 Page 17 of 84
`
`97.
`
`NTN and NTN USA have shared executives. For instance, Tadatoshi Kato, the
`
`president of NTN USA, is a former Managing Director and Senior Managing Director of NTN.
`
`Yasunobu Suzuki, the Chairman of the Board and Representative Director, is the former
`
`Chairman of NTN USA.
`
`98.
`
`Defendants NTN and NTN USA Corporation shall collectively be referred to
`
`herein as the “NTN Defendants” or “NTN.”
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
`
`99.
`
`Each Defendant acted as the principal of or agent for other Defendants with
`
`respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged.
`
`100. Various persons, partnerships, sole proprietors, firms, corporations and
`
`individuals not named as Defendants in this lawsuit, and individuals, the identities of which are
`
`presently unknown, have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants in the offenses
`
`alleged in this Complaint, and have performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the
`
`conspiracy or in furtherance of the anticompetitive conduct.
`
`101. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act, deed or transaction of
`
`any corporation or limited liability entity, the allegation means that the corporation or limited
`
`liability entity engaged in the act, deed or transaction by or through its officers, directors,
`
`agents, employees or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management,
`
`direction, control or transaction of the corporation’s or limited liability entity’s business or
`
`affairs.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8208 Page 18 of 84
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`The Automotive Bearings Industry
`
`102. Automotive Bearings are rolling elements that are used to decrease the
`
`rotational friction between a vehicle and the surface it runs on, such as a cemented road.
`
`Automotive Bearings help maintain balance in the event of speed changes or sudden braking
`
`while the automotive vehicle is in motion. Automotive Bearings are, among other things,
`
`inserted inside the wheels of the vehicle in a special slot called the “cage.” The Automotive
`
`Bearings then rotate around the cage while the vehicle is operating, thereby evenly distributing
`
`the load of the vehicle during operation. Automotive Bearings serve an essential role in most
`
`vehicles because they improve car performance and allow for smooth driving. Automotive
`
`Bearings are prone to wear and tear, and are usually replaced rather than repaired. See Figure
`
`1.
`
`Figure 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 585 filed 08/21/13 PageID.8209 Page 19 of 84
`
`103. Automotive Bearings are installed by automobile original equipment
`
`manufacturers (“OEMs”) in new cars as part of the automotive manufacturing process. They
`
`are also installed in cars to replace worn out, defective or damaged Automotive Bearings.
`
`104. For new cars, the OEMs—mostly large automotive manufacturers such as
`
`Honda, Toyota, Volvo, and General Motors—purchase Automotive Bearings directly from
`
`Defendants. Automotive Bearings may also be purchased by component manufacturers who
`
`then supply such components to OEMs. These component manufacturers are also called “Tier
`
`1 Manufacturers” in the industry. Tier 1 Manufacturers supply Automotive Bearings directly
`
`to an OEM.
`
`105. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Automotive Bearings to OEMs
`
`for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere.
`
`Defendants and their co-conspirators manufactured Automotive Bearings (a) in the United
`
`States for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States, (b) abroad for
`
`export to the United States and installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United
`
`States, and (c) abroad for installation in vehicles manufactured abroad for export to and sale in
`
`the United States.
`
`106. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes purchased Automotive Bearings
`
`indirectly from one or more of the Defendants. By way of example, an owner or lessee of a
`
`vehicle may indirectly purchase Automotive Bearings from Defendants when purchasing or
`
`leasing a new vehicle that contains Automotive Bearings as a component product. An owner
`
`or lessee of a vehicle may also indirectly purchase replacement Automotive Bearings from
`
`Defendants when repairing a damaged vehicle or where the vehicle’s Automotive Bearings are
`
`de