Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11121 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`____________________________________
`City of Richmond, City of Traverse City,
`)
`County of Oakland, Mecklenburg County, )
`And Village of Northport, on behalf of
`)
`Themselves and all similarly situated
`)
`entities
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) Master File No. 12-md-02311
`DENSO Corporation, DENSO International )
`America, Inc., Fujikura Ltd., Furukawa
`)
`Electric Co., Ltd., American Furukawa, Inc., ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Lear Corporation, Kyungshin-Lear Sales
`)
`and Engineering, LLC, Leoni Wiring
`)
`Systems, Inc., Leonische Holding, Inc.,
`)
`Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.,
`
`)
`Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc.
`)
`Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo )
`Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., K&S
`
`)
`Wiring Systems, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring
`)
`Systems (U.S.A.) Inc., Yazaki Corporation, )
`Yazaki North America, Inc., Tokai Rika
`)
`Co., Ltd., TRAM, Inc., G.S. Electech, Inc., )
`G.S. Wiring Systems Inc., and G.S.W.
`)
`Manufacturing Inc.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`)
`___________________________________ )
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11122 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS ............................................................................ 3
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .............................................................................. 9
`
`PARTIES ................................................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`A.
`
` PLAINTIFFS .................................................................................... 12
`
`B. DEFENDANTS .................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The DENSO Defendants ......................................................... 15
`
`2. The Fujikura Defendant ......................................................... 16
`
`3. The Furukawa Defendants ..................................................... 17
`
`4. The Lear Defendants ............................................................. 17
`
`5. The Leoni Defendants ............................................................. 19
`
`6. The Sumitomo Defendants ..................................................... 20
`
`7. The Yazaki Defendants ........................................................... 22
`
`8. The Tokai Rika Defendants ................................................... 23
`
`9. The G.S. Electech Defendants ................................................ 24
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS ............................................................... 25
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................ 26
`
`A. The Automotive Wire Harness System .......................................... 26
`
`B. The Request for Quotation Process ................................................ 29
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11123 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 121
`
`
`
`C. Defendants Increased Prices for Automotive Wire Harness
`Systems despite Stable Costs ............................................................ 32
`
`
`D. The Structure and Characteristics of the Automotive Wire
`Harness Systems Market Render the Conspiracy More
`Plausible ............................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The Automotive Wire Harness Systems Market Has
`High Barriers to Entry ........................................................... 34
`
`2. There is Inelasticity of Demand for Automotive Wire
`
`Harness Systems ...................................................................... 35
`
`3. The Market for Automotive Wire Harness Systems Is
`Highly Concentrated ............................................................... 36
`
`4. Defendants Had Ample Opportunities to Conspire ............ 38
`
`E. Government Investigations............................................................... 39
`
`F. Likely Existence of a Cooperating Defendant ................................ 41
`
`G.
`
`JFTC Cease and Desist Orders ........................................................ 42
`
`H. The European Commission Investigation ....................................... 43
`
`1. Guilty Pleas of Furukawa Electric and Executives ............. 44
`
`2. Guilty Pleas of Yazaki Corporation and Executives ........... 50
`
`I. Guilty Pleas ........................................................................................ 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Guilty Plea of Fujikura Ltd. and Indictment
`
`of Executives ............................................................................ 53
`
`4. Guilty Pleas of DENSO Corporation and Executive ........... 55
`
`
`
`
`5. Guilty Plea of G.S. Electech, Inc. and
`
`Indictment of Executive .......................................................... 58
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11124 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Guilty Pleas in Related Markets in the Automotive
`
`Industry .............................................................................................. 59
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................... 64
`
`PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES SUFFERED
`ANTITRUST INJURY .......................................................................................... 68
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED
`BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ............................................................ 75
`
`
`A. The Statute of Limitations Did Not Begin to Run Because
`Plaintiffs Did Not and Could Not Discover Their Claims ............. 75
`
`
`B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of
`
`Limitations ......................................................................................... 76
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF .............................................................................. 80
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ......................................................................... 82
`
`Arizona .......................................................................................................... 84
`
`California ...................................................................................................... 86
`
`Iowa ............................................................................................................. 88
`
`Maine............................................................................................................. 89
`
`Maryland ...................................................................................................... 91
`
`Michigan ....................................................................................................... 92
`
`Minnesota ..................................................................................................... 94
`
`Nebraska ....................................................................................................... 95
`
`Nevada........................................................................................................... 96
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11125 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`New Hampshire ............................................................................................ 98
`
`New Mexico .................................................................................................. 99
`
`New York .................................................................................................... 101
`
`North Carolina ........................................................................................... 102
`
`North Dakota .............................................................................................. 104
`
`South Dakota .............................................................................................. 105
`
`West Virginia ............................................................................................. 107
`
`Wisconsin .................................................................................................... 108
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................... 111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11126 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs (defined herein), by their undersigned attorneys, bring this
`
`action against Defendants (defined herein) based on the Defendants’ illegal
`
`combination and conspiracy with co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate
`
`competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, fix,
`
`stabilize and maintain the prices of, and allocate the supply of electronic
`
`automotive wire harness systems and related components installed in automobiles,
`
`trucks and other vehicles (“Automotive Wire Harness Systems”) during the period
`
`from and including January 1, 2000 through such time as the anticompetitive
`
`effects of Defendants’ conduct ceased (the “Class Period”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly
`
`situated states, state subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, and local
`
`government subdivisions and agencies, including but not limited to municipalities,
`
`cities, counties and towns(hereinafter “Public Entities”) that purchased or leased
`
`new vehicles manufactured during the Class Period and were injured by paying
`
`supra-competitive prices for those vehicles, reflecting the artificially inflated prices
`
`Defendants were able to charge for the Automotive Wire Harness Systems due to
`
`Defendants’ collusive and anti-competitive conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs bring
`
`this class claim for damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal
`
`antitrust laws as well as state antitrust and unfair competition laws.
`
`3. Except as to allegations specifically pertaining to themselves and their
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11127 Filed 10/03/14 Page 7 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`own actions, which are made based on direct knowledge, Plaintiffs’ claims are
`
`made on information and belief based on the investigation conducted by Plaintiffs’
`
`counsel. That investigation included reviewing and analyzing information
`
`obtained from, among other sources, publicly available press releases, news
`
`articles, and other media reports (whether disseminated in print or by electronic
`
`media) and criminal Informations, plea agreements, announcements and other
`
`documents filed or released by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in
`
`connection with multiple criminal guilty pleas by various of the Defendants and
`
`the DOJ’s longstanding investigation of the automotive parts industry. Those
`
`sources collectively support Plaintiffs’ allegations that, during the Class Period,
`
`Defendants collusively and systematically fixed prices, rigged bids and allocated
`
`supply of Automotive Wire Harness Systems.
`
`4.
`
`Except as alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiffs, other Class members,
`
`and members of the public do not have access to the underlying facts relating to
`
`Defendants’ improper activities. Rather, that information lies exclusively within
`
`the possession and control of Defendants and other insiders, which prevents
`
`Plaintiffs from further detailing Defendants’ misconduct. Moreover, ongoing
`
`governmental investigations by competition regulators around the world
`
`concerning potential price-fixing, bid-rigging and allocating market share for
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems, among other automotive parts, may yield
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11128 Filed 10/03/14 Page 8 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`further information from other Defendants and/or co-conspirators that could bear
`
`significantly on the Plaintiffs’ claims.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS
`
`5.
`
`The manufacture and sale of Automotive Wire Harness Systems is a
`
`multi-billion dollar industry. In its complaint filed in this Court against, inter alia,
`
`defendant Fujikura Ltd., the Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) states that between
`
`January 2000 and at least February 2010, Ford purchased in excess of $10 billion
`
`of Automotive Wire Harness Systems in the U.S. and elsewhere. Similarly
`
`situated Public Entities are currently excluded from the class definition of pending
`
`cases, leaving them unrepresented in this action. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a
`
`proposed class action against Defendants, who collectively control more than70%
`
`of the global market for Automotive Wire Harness Systems, to recover on behalf
`
`of those Public Entities.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and other co-conspirators have
`
`engaged in a conspiracy beginning in or around January 2000 with the intention
`
`and effect of inflating and fixing prices, rigging bids and allocating the supply of
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems used in motor vehicles sold in the U.S. and
`
`elsewhere during the Class Period. As a result, the manufacturing cost for those
`
`vehicles was artificially inflated based on the supra-competitive prices the co-
`
`conspirators charged for Automotive Wire Harness Systems, which constitute a
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11129 Filed 10/03/14 Page 9 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`critical and significant component in all motor vehicles sold in the U.S. These
`
`supra-competitive prices were passed through to Plaintiffs and other similarly
`
`situated Public Entities that purchased or leased new vehicles manufactured during
`
`the Class Period, paying artificially inflated prices for those motor vehicles as the
`
`result of Defendants’ illegal conduct.
`
`7.
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems, which act as the central nervous
`
`system of a motor vehicle, are electrical distribution systems that act to direct and
`
`control electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in an automobile.
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems include the following parts and sub-systems:
`
`automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring
`
`connectors, automotive wiring terminals, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay
`
`boxes, junction blocks, power distributors, and speed sensor wire assemblies.
`
`8.
`
`As set forth herein, the Defendants, including (i) the Denso
`
`Defendants, (ii) the Fujikura Defendant, (iii) the Furukawa Defendants, (iv) the
`
`Lear Defendants, (v) the Leoni Defendants, (vi) the Sumitomo Defendants, (vii)
`
`the Yazaki Defendants, (viii) the Tokai Rika Defendants, and (ix) the G.S.
`
`Electech Defendants (all as defined below, and collectively “Defendants”)
`
`manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Wire Harness Systems in the
`
`United States during the Class Period.
`
`9.
`
`Competition authorities in the United States, the European Union, and
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11130 Filed 10/03/14 Page 10 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Japan, among others, have been investigating a conspiracy in the market for
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems, which first became public in February 2010.
`
`As part of its criminal investigation, the United States DOJ has sought information
`
`about anticompetitive conduct in the market for Automotive Wire Harness
`
`Systems, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has participated in raids,
`
`pursuant to search warrants issued on a showing of probable cause, carried out in
`
`the U.S. offices of some of the Defendants. The European Commission (“EC”)
`
`Competition Authority has also conducted dawn raids at the European offices of
`
`several of the Defendants.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, defendants Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., Yazaki
`
`Corporation, DENSO Corporation, G.S. Electech, Inc., and Fujikura Ltd., have
`
`each separately pled guilty to participating in the Automotive Wire Harness
`
`Systems cartel during the Class Period, and have agreed to pay substantial criminal
`
`fines totaling more than $770 million under plea agreements with the DOJ related
`
`to their unlawful conduct. These defendants have admitted to their participation in
`
`a combination and conspiracy with co-conspirators 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 Wire Harness Systems sold to
`
`automobile manufacturers and others in the United States and elsewhere.
`
`As the result of ongoing global regulatory investigations, Defendant
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11131 Filed 10/03/14 Page 11 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd. (“Furukawa Electric”), and three of its
`executives have pled guilty to participating with co-conspirators in the
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems cartel from at least as early as
`January 2000 and continuing until at least January 2010. Furukawa
`Electric has agreed to pay a $200 million criminal fine related to its
`unlawful conduct.
`
`11. Defendant Yazaki Corporation, and five of its executives have also
`
`pled guilty to colluding with co-conspirators to fix prices, rig bids and allocate
`
`supplies of Automotive Wire Harness Systems, from at least as early as January
`
`2000 and continuing until at least February 2010. Yazaki Corporation has agreed to
`
`pay a $470 million criminal fine for its agreements to restrain prices for
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems, as well as several other automotive
`
`components. This fine was the second highest fine ever paid for a criminal
`
`antitrust violation, up to that time.
`
`12. Defendant Fujikura, Ltd. has admitted to engaging in the conspiracy
`
`with co-conspirators to restrain competition for Automotive Wire Harness Systems
`
`from at least as early as January 2006 and continuing until at least February 2010.
`
`Fujikura Ltd. and two of its executives have pled guilty to fixing prices, rigging
`
`bids and allocating the supply of Automotive Wire Harness Systems in the U.S.
`
`Fujikura Ltd. has agreed to pay a $20 million criminal fine for its participation in
`
`the Automotive Wire Harness Systems conspiracy.
`
`13. Defendant G.S. Electech Inc. has pled guilty to engaging in a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11132 Filed 10/03/14 Page 12 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`conspiracy with co-conspirators to fix prices, rig bids and allocate supply of speed
`
`sensor wire assemblies (which comprise the antilock brake system (“ABS”)/speed
`
`sensor wire harness, a portion of the Automotive Wire Harness System), from at
`
`least as early as January 2003 and continuing until at least February 2010. G.S.
`
`Electech, Inc. has agreed to pay a $2.75 million criminal fine for this misconduct.
`
`14. Defendant DENSO Corporation has pled guilty to engaging in a
`
`conspiracy with co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition in the
`
`automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids, fix prices and allocate supplies of
`
`electronic control units (“ECUs”), a component of Automotive Wire Harness
`
`Systems, beginning in January 2000 and continuing until at least February 2010.
`
`DENSO Corporation has agreed to pay $78 million for engaging in the above
`
`conspiracy, as well as in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and fix, stabilize, and
`
`maintain prices of another automotive part, heater control panels, during the same
`
`period.
`
`15. The above Defendants have admitted by their guilty pleas, that the
`
`combination and conspiracy they engaged in with their co-conspirators was an
`
`unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of
`
`the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
`
`16. As part of their plea agreements, the above Defendants have agreed to
`
`assist the DOJ in its ongoing criminal investigation into the automotive parts
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11133 Filed 10/03/14 Page 13 of 121
`
`
`
`industry.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`In addition to regulatory investigations and guilty pleas in connection
`
`with Automotive Wire Harness Systems, the DOJ has also entered into plea
`
`agreements with automotive parts manufacturers for conspiracies to rig bids, fix
`
`prices and allocate supplies of other automotive parts, including, inter alia, heater
`
`control panels, seatbelts, airbags, steering wheels, ignition coils, steering angle
`
`sensors, turn and wiper switches, starter motors, alternators, air flow meters, fuel
`
`injection systems, windshield wiper and washer systems, bearings, radiators,
`
`automatic transmission fluid warmers, air conditioning systems, compressors and
`
`condensers. Recently, for example, Bridgestone agreed to pay a $425 million fine
`
`before a Judge in the Northern District of Ohio in Toledo for engaging in a
`
`conspiracy “to allocate sales of, to rig bids for and to fix, raise and maintain the
`
`prices of automotive anti-vibration rubber part.”
`
`18.
`
`In total, as of mid-2014, the DOJ has charged at least 27 companies
`
`and 34individualsin connection with its investigations into price-fixing and bid-
`
`rigging in the automotive parts industry. Pursuant to these investigations, to date,
`
`the DOJ has collected over $2.3 billion in criminal fines and imposed over 240
`
`aggregate months of prison in connection with this widespread antitrust scheme.
`
`19. As a direct result of the anti-competitive and unlawful conduct alleged
`
`herein in connection with the Automotive Wire Harness Systems, Plaintiffs and the
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11134 Filed 10/03/14 Page 14 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Public Entity members of the Classes (defined herein) paid artificially inflated
`
`prices for new motor vehicles they bought or leased during the Class Period as a
`
`result of the pass-through of supra-competitive prices charged for Automotive
`
`Wire Harness Systems, and have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business
`
`or property.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`20. 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 and unfair competition
`
`laws, and seek to obtain restitution, recover damages and secure other relief against
`
`Defendants for violation of those state laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek
`
`attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under federal and state law.
`
`21. 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. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, in that: (i) 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
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11135 Filed 10/03/14 Page 15 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`from some Defendants; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ state law claims form part of the same
`
`case or controversy as their federal claims under Article III of the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`22. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton
`
`Act (15U.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.
`
`23. 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 Wire Harness Systems 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) was engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy that was directed at,
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11136 Filed 10/03/14 Page 16 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Each Defendant also conducts business in the United States, including in this
`
`District, and has purposefully availed itself of the laws of the United States.
`
`24. Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside of the United
`
`States that caused direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable and intended anti-
`
`competitive effects upon interstate commerce within the United States.
`
`25. 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.
`
`26. Automotive Wire Harness Systems manufactured abroad by
`
`Defendants and sold for use in automobiles that were either manufactured in the
`
`United States or manufactured abroad and sold or leased in the United States are
`
`goods brought into the United States for sale or lease, and therefore constitute
`
`import commerce. To the extent any Automotive Wire Harness Systems are
`
`purchased in the United States, and such Automotive Wire Harness Systems do not
`
`constitute import commerce, Defendants’ unlawful activities during the Class
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11137 Filed 10/03/14 Page 17 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Period with respect thereto, as more fully alleged herein, 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.
`
`27. By reason of the unlawful activities hereinafter alleged, Defendants
`
`substantially affected commerce throughout the United States, causing injury to the
`
`Plaintiffs and members of the Classes. Defendants, directly and through their
`
`agents, engaged in activities affecting all states, to fix or inflate prices of
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems, which conspiracy unreasonably restrained
`
`trade and adversely affected the market for Automotive Wire Harness Systems.
`
`28. Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely
`
`affected Public Entities in the United States that(through the purchase or lease of
`
`new automobiles not for resale) paid supra-competitive prices for Automotive
`
`Wire Harness Systems, including Plaintiffs and members of the Classes.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A. PLAINTIFFS
`
`29. Plaintiff City of Richmond (“Richmond”) is a California charter city
`
`organized under Article XI, Section 3 of the California Constitution. Incorporated
`
`in 1905, Richmond had a population of approximately 103,701 residents at the
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11138 Filed 10/03/14 Page 18 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`time of the 2010 Census. It is the second largest city in Contra Costa County and
`
`the 61st largest city in California. During the Class Period, Richmond purchased
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems indirectly from one or more Defendants or their
`
`co-conspirators, and was damaged by paying supra-competitive prices as the result
`
`of Defendants’ illegal conduct. Since 2000, Richmond has purchased vehicles for
`
`use by, for example, its Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works
`
`Department, Library, Recreation Department, Engineering and Wastewater
`
`Department, Paratransit program, and for general pool use. These vehicles contain
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems manufactured by one or more of the
`
`Defendants.
`
`30. Plaintiff City of Traverse City (“Traverse City”) is a Michigan
`
`municipal corporation and a home rule city. Voters approved the Charter of
`
`Traverse City on April 10, 1913. During the Class Period, Traverse City
`
`purchased Automotive Wire Harness Systems indirectly from one or more
`
`Defendants or their co-conspirators, and was damaged by paying supra-
`
`competitive prices as the result of Defendants’ illegal conduct. Since 2000,
`
`Traverse City has purchased vehicles for use by, for example, its Police
`
`Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, Recreation Department,
`
`Engineering and Wastewater Department, and for general pool use. These vehicles
`
`contain Automotive Wire Harness Systems manufactured by one or more of the
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11139 Filed 10/03/14 Page 19 of 121
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`31. Plaintiff Oakland County (“Oakland County”) is political subdivision
`
`of the State of Michigan. During the Class Period, Oakland County purchased
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems indirectly from one or more Defendants or their
`
`co-conspirators, and was damaged by paying supra-competitive prices as the result
`
`of Defendants’ illegal conduct. Since 2000, Oakland County has purchased
`
`vehicles for use by, for example, its airports, Sheriff’s Department, Animal Control
`
`Department, Building Authority, Facilities Maintenance and Operations
`
`Department, Libraries, Medical Examiner, Parks and Recreation Department,
`
`Support Services Department, and for general pool use. These vehicles contain
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems manufactured by one or more of the
`
`Defendants.
`
`32. Plaintiff Mecklenburg County (“Mecklenburg County”)is a body
`
`politic and a corporate and political subdivision of the State of North Carolina.
`
`During the Class Period, Mecklenburg County purchased Automotive Wire
`
`Harness Systems indirectly from one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators,
`
`and was damaged by paying supra-competitive prices as the result of Defendants’
`
`illegal conduct. Since 2000, Mecklenburg County has purchased vehicles for use
`
`by, for example, its Sheriff’s Department, Department of Social Services, Library,
`
`Parks and Recreation Department, Public Health and Area Mental Health
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11140 Filed 10/03/14 Page 20 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Departments, Land Use and Environmental Services Department, Tax Department
`
`and Community Support Services, and for general pool use. These vehicles
`
`contain Automotive Wire Harness Systems manufactured by one or more of the
`
`Defendants.
`
`33. Plaintiff Village of Northport (“Northport”) is a political subdivision
`
`of the State of New York. During the Class Period, Northport purchased
`
`Automotive Wire Harness Systems indirectly from one or more Defendants or their
`
`co-conspirators, and was damaged by paying supra-competitive prices as the result
`
`of Defendants’ illegal conduct. Since 2000, Village of Northport has purchased
`
`vehicles for use by, for example, its Police Department, Fire Department and for
`
`other municipal uses. These vehicles contain Automotive Wire Harness Systems
`
`manufactured by one or more of the Defendants.
`
`34. Collectively, Richmond, Traverse City, Oakland County,
`
`Mecklenburg County and Northport are referred to herein as “Plaintiffs.”
`
`B. DEFENDANTS
`
`1. The DENSO Defendants
`
`35. Defendant DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation. DENSO
`
`Corporation –directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned
`
`and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Wire Harness
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 828, PageID.11141 Filed 10/03/14 Page 21 of 121
`
`
`
`
`
`Systems that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during
`
`the Class Period.
`
`36.