DM1\4908432.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Master File No. 12-md-02311 

Case No. ___________________ 

Jury Trial Demanded

In re: 

BEARINGS CASES 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc.; Rush 

Truck Centers of California, Inc.; Rush Truck 

Centers of Colorado, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers 

of Florida, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of 

Georgia, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Idaho, 

Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Illinois, Inc.; Rush 

Truck Centers of Indiana, Inc.; Rush Truck 

Centers of Kansas, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of 

Missouri, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of North 

Carolina, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Ohio, 

Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Oklahoma, Inc.; 

Rush Truck Centers of Oregon, Inc.; Rush 

Truck Centers of Tennessee, Inc.; Rush Truck 

Centers of Texas, LP.; Rush Truck Centers of 

Utah, Inc., and Rush Truck Centers of Virginia, 

Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

JTEKT Corporation; Koyo Corporation of 

U.S.A.; Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.; Nachi America 

Inc.; NSK Ltd.; NSK Americas, Inc.; 

Schaeffler Group USA Inc.; SKF USA, Inc.; 

NTN Corporation; and NTN USA Corporation,

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 1 of 82 Pg ID 1
 2 

DM1\4908432.1 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

PLAINTIFFS Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc. (“Rush AZ”), Rush Truck Centers of 

California, Inc. (“Rush CA”), Rush Truck Centers of Colorado, Inc. (“Rush CO”), Rush Truck 

Centers of Florida, Inc. (“Rush FL”), Rush Truck Centers of Georgia, Inc. (“Rush GA”), Rush 

Truck Centers of Idaho, Inc. (“Rush ID”), Rush Truck Centers of Illinois, Inc. (“Rush IL”); Rush 

Truck Centers of Indiana, Inc. (“Rush IN”); Rush Truck Centers of Kansas, Inc. (“Rush KS”), 

Rush Truck Centers of North Carolina, Inc. (“Rush NC”), Rush Truck Centers of Ohio, Inc. 

(“Rush OH”), Rush Truck Centers of Oklahoma, Inc. (“Rush OK”), Rush Truck Centers of 

Oregon, Inc. (“Rush OR”); Rush Truck Centers of Tennessee, Inc. (“Rush TN”); Rush Truck 

Centers of Texas, LP. (“Rush TX”); Rush Truck Centers of Utah, Inc. (“Rush UT”); and Rush 

Truck Centers of Virginia, Inc. (“Rush VA”), (collectively “Plaintiffs”) file this Consolidated 

Class Complaint on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated dealers of medium- and 

heavy-duty trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, 

agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other similar vehicles (the “Classes” as defined 

below). 

Plaintiffs 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 allege as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a proposed class action against the Defendants 

(defined below), manufacturers, and suppliers of vehicle bearings (defined below) globally and 

in the United States for engaging in a lengthy conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition 

in the bearings industry by agreeing to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of these products, 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 2 of 82 Pg ID 2
 3 

DM1\4908432.1 

which were sold to truck and equipment manufacturers and other manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere. 

2. “Bearings” refers to bearings used in heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, medium-duty 

(Class 4, 5, 6 & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining 

equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other similar vehicles (collectively, 

“Vehicles”). Examples of types of Bearings include, without limitation, ball bearings, tapered 

roller bearings, roller bearings, and mounted bearings. 

3. The “Class Period” refers to January 1, 2004 to the present. 

4. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Bearings throughout the United 

States and in other countries for use in, among other things, Vehicles. 

5. Vehicles containing Bearings, as well as Bearings themselves, made by 

Defendants, are sold in every state of the United States and the District of Columbia and were 

purchased by Plaintiffs and other truck and/or equipment dealers. 

6. The Defendants and other as yet unknown co-conspirators agreed, combined, and 

conspired to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of Bearings. They carried out their conspiracy 

by agreeing, during meetings and conversations, to fix the prices of Bearings. Defendants then 

sold Bearings at noncompetitive prices to truck and equipment manufacturers and other 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere, for sale in United States, which 

manufacturers, in turn, sold the Bearings, and/or Vehicles and parts for Vehicles containing the 

Bearings, to Plaintiffs and other truck and/or equipment dealers. 

7. Defendants’ conduct is the subject of a global criminal investigation being 

conducted by competition authorities in the United States, the European Union, South Korea, 

Singapore, Australia, Canada, Japan, and China. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 3 of 82 Pg ID 3
 4 

DM1\4908432.1 

8. As part of its criminal investigation, the United States Department of Justice 

(“DOJ”) has sought and is seeking information from Defendants and others about 

anticompetitive conduct in the market for Bearings. The European Commission Competition 

Authority (“EC”) has conducted raids at the European offices of several of the Defendants in 

connection with investigating allegations of anticompetitive conduct in the market for Bearings. 

9. The Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) began an investigation into 

anticompetitive activity by Bearings manufacturers in July 2011 after JTEKT Corporation 

reported the Bearings cartel to the JFTC as part of a bid for leniency. Officials of NSK Ltd. and 

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. have also admitted their roles in the Bearings cartel. 

10. On June 14, 2012, the JFTC filed a criminal accusation alleging a criminal 

violation of the Japan’s Antimonopoly Act against NSK Ltd, NTN Corp., and Nachi-Fujikoshi 

Corp. 

11. On December 28, 2012, Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. and two of its executives were 

convicted in Tokyo District Court of violating Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. 

12. On February 25, 2013, Defendant NSK Ltd. announced that the company was 

sentenced to a penalty of 380 million yen by the Tokyo District Court for violation of the 

Antimonopoly Act of Japan regarding sales of Bearings as a result of the June 14, 2012 

prosecution by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. In addition, two of NSK’s former 

officers and a former employee received suspended sentences. 

13. On March 29, 2013, the JFTC issued cease and desist orders and surcharge 

payment orders based on violations of the Japan Antimonopoly Act against NTN Corp., NSK 

Ltd. and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp, for conspiring to fix prices on “industrial machinery bearings 

and automotive bearings.” The JFTC also noted that JTEKT Corporation had violated the 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 4 of 82 Pg ID 4
 5 

DM1\4908432.1 

Antimonopoly Act through its participation in the conspiracy, but was not subject to the cease 

and desist order. 

14. On September 26, 2013, the United Stated Department of Justice announced that 

JTEKT Corporation was being fined $103 million and NSK Ltd. was being fined $68 million for 

engaging in a conspiracy to allocate markets, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the 

prices of Bearings. 

15. JTEKT Corporation and NSK Ltd. both have entered guilty pleas in Canada to 

engaging in the Bearings conspiracy in violation of Canadian competition laws. NSK was fined 

$4.5 million and JTEKT was fined $5 million for violating the Canadian Competition Act. 

16. On March 19, 2014, the EC announced that it had found that SKF, Schaeffler, 

JTEKT Corporation, NSK Ltd., Nachi-Fujikoshi, and NTN had operated a cartel in the market 

for car and truck bearings and fined all those companies (excluding JTEKT, which benefitted 

from immunity for having revealed the existence of the cartel to the EC) a collective EUR 953 

million. 

17. On August 19, 2014, China's National Development and Reform Commission 

announced that it had handed down a 174.92 million yuan penalty against NSK and a 119.16 

million yuan fine against NTN for violating China’s antitrust law in connection with the 

Bearings cartel. 

18. As a direct result of the anti-competitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, 

Plaintiffs and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for Bearings and for Vehicles and Vehicle 

parts containing Bearings. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes have thereby suffered 

antitrust injury to their business or property. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 5 of 82 Pg ID 5
 6 

DM1\4908432.1 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

19. 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 state laws. 

Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under federal and 

state law. 

20. 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 over the state law claims in this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, 

because 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 different states than some Defendants. 

21. 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. 

22. 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 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 6 of 82 Pg ID 6
 7 

DM1\4908432.1 

subsidiaries, inter alia: (a) transacted business in the United States, including in this district; (b) 

directly or indirectly sold or marketed substantial quantities of Bearings throughout the United 

States that were specifically designed for vehicles that were intended to be sold in the United 

States, including in this district; (c) had substantial aggregate contacts with the United States as a 

whole, including in this district; (d) was through its own actions and through the actions of its coconspirators, 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; (e) targeted customers in the United States, including this district, and/or (f) engaged in 

actions in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy in this district either itself or through its coconspirators. 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 and this 

district. 

23. Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside of the United States that 

caused direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable, and intended anti-competitive effects upon 

interstate commerce within the United States and upon import trade and commerce into the 

United States. 

24. The activities of Defendants and their co-conspirators were within the flow of, 

were intended to have, and did have, a substantial effect on interstate commerce of the United 

States. Defendants’ products are sold in the flow of interstate commerce. 

25. Bearings manufactured abroad by Defendants and sold for use in trucks and 

equipment 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, as such, constitute import 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 7 of 82 Pg ID 7
 8 

DM1\4908432.1 

commerce. To the extent any Bearings are purchased in the United States and such 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. 

26. 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 activities affecting all states to 

fix or inflate prices of Bearings, and that conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade and adversely 

affected the market for Bearings. 

27. Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely affected 

persons in the United States who purchased Bearings, including Plaintiffs and the Classes. 

PARTIES 

The Plaintiffs 

28. Plaintiff Rush AZ is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Arizona. Rush AZ is an authorized Peterbilt and Hino dealer that purchased and then sold 

Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, during the Class Period. 

29. During the Class Period Rush AZ purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush AZ also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush AZ purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 8 of 82 Pg ID 8
 9 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Arizona. Rush AZ has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Arizona during the Class Period. 

30. Plaintiff Rush CA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

California. Rush CA is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, and Ford dealer that purchased and 

then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their 

co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, during the Class Period. 

31. During the Class Period Rush CA purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush CA also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush CA purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in California. Rush CA has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in California during the Class Period. 

32. Plaintiff Rush CO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Colorado. Rush CO is an authorized Peterbilt, Isuzu, and Ford dealer that purchased and then 

sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, during the Class Period. 

33. During the Class Period Rush CO purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush CO also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush CO purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 9 of 82 Pg ID 9
 10 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Colorado. Rush CO has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Colorado during the Class Period. 

34. Plaintiff Rush FL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Florida. Rush FL is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, and Isuzu dealer that purchased and then sold 

Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, during the Class Period. 

35. During the Class Period Rush FL purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush FL also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush FL purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Florida. Rush FL has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Florida during the Class Period. 

36. Plaintiff Rush GA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Georgia. Rush GA is an authorized International, Hino, Isuzu, and IC Bus dealer that purchased 

and then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or 

their co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or 

their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

37. During the Class Period Rush GA purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush GA also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush GA purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 10 of 82 Pg ID 10
 11 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Georgia. Rush GA has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Georgia during the Class Period. 

38. Plaintiff Rush ID is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Idaho. Rush ID is an authorized International, Autocar, and IC Bus dealer that purchased and 

then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their 

co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, during the Class Period. 

39. During the Class Period Rush ID purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush ID also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush ID purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Idaho. Rush ID has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Idaho during the Class Period. 

40. Plaintiff Rush IL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Illinois. Rush IL is an authorized International dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles 

containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as 

well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

41. During the Class Period Rush IL purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush IL also purchased 

Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair 

and service business during the Class Period. Rush IL purchased and received both the afore2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 11 of 82 Pg ID 11
 12 

DM1\4908432.1 

mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Illinois. Rush IL has also displayed, sold, and advertised 

Vehicles in Illinois during the Class Period. 

42. Plaintiff Rush IN is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Indiana. Rush IN is an authorized International dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles 

containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as 

well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

43. During the Class Period Rush IN purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush IN also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush IN purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Indiana. Rush IN has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Indiana during the Class Period. 

44. Plaintiff Rush KS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Kansas. Rush KS is an authorized Hino and Isuzu dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles 

containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as 

well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

45. During the Class Period Rush KS purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush KS also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush KS purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 12 of 82 Pg ID 12
 13 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Kansas. Rush KS has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Kansas during the Class Period. 

46. Plaintiff Rush NC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

North Carolina. Rush NC is an authorized International, Peterbilt, Hino, and Isuzu dealer that 

purchased and then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

47. During the Class Period Rush NC purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush NC also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush NC purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in North Carolina. Rush NC has also displayed, 

sold, and advertised Vehicles in North Carolina during the Class Period. 

48. Plaintiff Rush OH is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Ohio. Rush OH is an authorized International, IC Bus, Isuzu, Ford, and Mitsubishi dealer that 

purchased and then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

49. During the Class Period Rush OH purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush OH also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush OH purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 13 of 82 Pg ID 13
 14 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Ohio. Rush OH has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Ohio during the Class Period. 

50. Plaintiff Rush OK is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Oklahoma. Rush OK is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, and Ford dealer that purchased and 

then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their 

co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, during the Class Period. 

51. During the Class Period Rush OK purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush OK also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush OK purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Oklahoma. Rush OK has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Oklahoma during the Class Period. 

52. Plaintiff Rush OR is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Oregon. Rush OR is an authorized International dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles 

containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as 

well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

53. During the Class Period Rush OR purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush OR also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush OR purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 14 of 82 Pg ID 14
 15 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Oregon. Rush OR has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Oregon during the Class Period. 

54. Plaintiff Rush TN is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Tennessee. Rush TN is an authorized Peterbilt dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles 

containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as 

well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

55. During the Class Period Rush TN purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush TN also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush TN purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Tennessee. Rush TN has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Tennessee during the Class Period. 

56. Plaintiff Rush TX is a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of 

business in Texas. Rush TX is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, Blue Bird, Micro Bird, 

Elkhart, and Ford dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

57. During the Class Period Rush TX purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush TX also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush TX purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 15 of 82 Pg ID 15
 16 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Texas. Rush TX has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Texas during the Class Period. 

58. Plaintiff Rush UT is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Utah. Rush UT is an authorized International, IC Bus, Autocar, and Mitsubishi Fuso dealer that 

purchased and then sold Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

59. During the Class Period Rush UT purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush UT also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush UT purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Utah. Rush UT has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Utah during the Class Period. 

60. Plaintiff Rush VA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Virginia. Rush VA is an authorized International dealer that purchased and then sold Vehicles 

containing Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as 

well as Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

61. During the Class Period Rush VA purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush VA also 

purchased Bearings manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for 

its repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush VA purchased and received both 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 16 of 82 Pg ID 16
 17 

DM1\4908432.1 

the afore-mentioned Vehicles and Bearings in Virginia. Rush VA has also displayed, sold, and 

advertised Vehicles in Virginia during the Class Period. 

The Defendants 

62. Defendant JTEKT Corporation (“JTEKT Corporation”) is a Japanese corporation 

with its principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. JTEKT Corporation directly and/or through 

its wholly owned and/or controlled subsidiaries manufactured, marketed and/or sold Bearings 

that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class 

Period. 

63. 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 Corporation. Defendant Koyo manufactured, marketed and/or 

sold Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period, including by firms that sold such Bearings to Plaintiffs and class members. During 

the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of its 

Japanese parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

64. JTEKT Corporation and Koyo also share and have shared numerous executives. 

Hiroyuki Miyazaki, an executive director at JTEKT Corporation is also a Director at Koyo. 

Noriya Murase, a Senior Executive Director at JTEKT Corporation, is the former President and 

Chief Executive Officer of Koyo. 

65. Defendants Koyo and JTEKT Corporation are collectively referred to herein as 

“JTEKT.” 

66. Defendant Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. (“Nachi-Fujikoshi”) is a Japanese corporation 

with its principal place of business in Toyama, Japan. Nachi directly and/or through its wholly 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 17 of 82 Pg ID 17
 18 

DM1\4908432.1 

owned and/or controlled subsidiaries manufactured, marketed and/or sold Bearings that were 

purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period. 

67. 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 manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during 

the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Bearings to Plaintiffs and class members. 

During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of 

its Japanese parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

68. Nachi America and Nachi-Fujikoshi also share and have shared numerous 

executives. Toru Inoue, a corporate officer at Nachi-Fujikoshi, is listed in its 2013 Company 

Profile as the President of Nachi America “[i]n Charge of North & Central America.” Nobuo 

Segawa, a former director at Nachi-Fujikoshi is also a former President of Nachi America. 

Makoto Sasaki, a Managing Director and General Manager of Sales Strategy of Nachi-Fujikoshi 

is the former Chairman of the Board of Nachi America. 

69. Nachi America is referred to in Nachi-Fujikoshi’s 2013 Annual Report as one of 

Nachi-Fujikoshi’s “Sales Offices.” Nachi-Fujikoshi’s 2013 Annual Report also states that one of 

Nachi-Fujikoshi’s management policies is “creating markets in Japan, Europe, and the USA as 

new volume zones.” Nachi-Fujikoshi’s company profile indicates that it has been “marketing 

with large OEM customers . . . in America” since 1955. 

70. Defendants Nachi America and Nachi-Fujikoshi are collectively referred to herein 

as “Nachi.” 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 18 of 82 Pg ID 18
 19 

DM1\4908432.1 

71. Defendant NSK Ltd. (“NSK Ltd.”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal 

place of business in Tokyo, Japan. NSK Ltd. directly and/or through its wholly owned and/or 

controlled subsidiaries manufactured, marketed and/or sold Bearings that were purchased 

throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period. 

72. 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 Ltd. Defendant NSK Americas manufactured, marketed and/or 

sold Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period, including by firms that sold such Bearings to Plaintiffs and class members. During 

the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of its 

Japanese parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

73. NSK Ltd.’s Annual Reports set forth aggregate financials for all of the NSK 

entities. Sales are reported by the sectors the entities supply, rather than by subsidiary. 

74. NSK Ltd. and NSK Americas have shared numerous executives. Bernard 

Lindsay served as COO for NSK Americas and then as Chief Executive Officer, CEO, and Vice 

President of NSK Ltd. Masahide Matsubara, a senior Vice President at NSK, Ltd., is the former 

Chief Executive Officer of NSK Americas. 

75. Defendants NSK Ltd. and NSK Americas are collectively referred to herein as 

“NSK.” 

76. Defendant Schaeffler Group USA Inc. (“Schaeffler”) 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 AG. Defendant Schaeffler manufactured, 

marketed and/or sold Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 19 of 82 Pg ID 19
 20 

DM1\4908432.1 

District, during the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Bearings to Plaintiffs and 

class members. 

77. Defendant SKF USA, Inc. (“SKF”) 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, AB SKF. Defendant SKF manufactured, marketed and/or sold Bearings 

that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period, 

including by firms that sold such Bearings to Plaintiffs and class members. 

78. Defendant NTN Corporation (“NTN Corporation”) is a Japanese corporation with 

its principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. NTN Corporation directly and/or through its 

wholly owned and/or controlled subsidiaries manufactured, marketed and/or sold Bearings that 

were purchased throughout the United States, including, in this district, during, the Class Period. 

79. Defendant NTN USA Corporation (“NTN USA”) is a Delaware corporation with 

its principal place of business in Mount Prospect, Illinois. NTN USA manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Bearings that were purchased in the United States, including in this District, during 

the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Bearings to Plaintiffs and class members. 

During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of 

its Japanese parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

80. NTN Corporation and NTN USA have shared a number of executives. For 

instance, Tadatoshi Kato, the president of NTN USA is a former Managing Director and Senior 

Managing Director of NTN Corporation. Yasunobu Suzuki, the Chairman of the Board and 

Representative Director at NTN Corporation, is the former Chairman of NTN USA. 

81. NTN USA does not have its own website. Rather its website is listed on NTN 

Corporation’s website as “NTNAmericas.com.” The homepage of that website indicates that any 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 20 of 82 Pg ID 20
 21 

DM1\4908432.1 

American entities view themselves as NTN Corporation, their Japanese parent, and not as 

separate entities. The website states of “NTN Americas” that “[a]s the world’s third largest 

bearing manufacturer, we have over 68 plants worldwide and nearly 100 years of premium 

quality to our name.” 

82. Defendants NTN Corporation and NTN USA are collectively referred to herein as 

“NTN.” 

AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS 

83. Each Defendant acted as the principal of or agent for the other Defendant with 

respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged. 

84. Various persons, partnerships, sole proprietors, firms, corporations, and 

individuals not named as Defendants in this lawsuit, 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 anti-competitive conduct. 

85. 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. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. The Bearings Industry 

86. Bearings are rolling elements that are used to decrease the rotational friction 

between a vehicle and the surface it runs on. Among other things, Bearings help maintain 

balance in the event of speed changes or sudden braking while a Vehicle, such as a truck, is in 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 21 of 82 Pg ID 21
 22 

DM1\4908432.1 

motion. Bearings are, among other things, located inside the wheels of Vehicles, where they 

rotate while the Vehicle is operating, thereby evenly distributing the load of the Vehicle during 

operation. Bearings serve an essential role in most Vehicles because they improve performance 

and allow for smooth operation. Bearings are prone to wear and tear, and are usually replaced 

rather than repaired. 

87. Bearings are installed by truck and equipment original equipment manufacturers 

(“OEMs”) in new trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining 

equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other similar vehicles as part of the 

manufacturing process. They are also installed in trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, 

construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other 

similar vehicles to replace worn out, defective or damaged Bearings. 

88. Truck and equipment OEMs including International, Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, 

Mitsubishi Fuso, Autocar and Ford purchased Bearings directly from one or more of the 

Defendants during the Class Period. 

89. Schaeffler’s main customers include Volvo Trucks. 

90. SKF’s main customers include PACCAR, which manufactures Peterbilt trucks, 

and Freightliner. 

91. NTN’s main customers include Freightliner. 

92. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Bearings to OEMs for installation 

in Vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere. Defendants and their coconspirators manufactured 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 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 22 of 82 Pg ID 22
 23 

DM1\4908432.1 

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. 

93. Suppliers, including Defendants, supplied OEMs with both Bearings to be 

installed in vehicles and Bearings to be used for replacement purposes. 

94. OEM replacement Bearings are the same as the Bearings installed in new 

Vehicles and are, by definition, made by the same manufacturer who made the Bearings 

originally installed in the Vehicle. Such OEM replacement parts are not the same as aftermarket 

parts, which are made by different manufacturers than those who manufactured the original 

parts. The prices of OEM replacement Bearings were inflated by Defendants’ collusion. 

95. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes indirectly purchased Bearings, 

either as stand-alone parts, for repair or replacement, or in Vehicles containing Bearings. 

96. The U.S. market size for motor vehicle Bearings was $2.71 billion in 2008. 

97. The Bearings market is dominated and controlled by a small number of 

manufacturers, which include Defendants. 

B. Defendants Increased Prices for Bearings in the Face of Declining Demand 

during the Class Period 

98. In a competitive market, falling demand leads to decreased prices because 

competitors need to lower prices to attract customers and increase demand. In a market where 

competitors have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, however, competitors do not lower prices 

even when faced with decreasing demand. Such price decreases are unnecessary because the 

conspirators know that they will not lose sales to lower-priced competitors. 

99. The price of Bearings increased during the Class Period, even during periods 

when demand decreased. In a competitive market, falling demand should not have resulted in 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 23 of 82 Pg ID 23
 24 

DM1\4908432.1 

rising prices for Bearings. Such anticompetitive price increases have resulted in Plaintiffs’ and 

members of the Classes paying supracompetitive prices for Bearings. 

C. The Structure and Characteristics of the Bearings Market. 

100. The structure and other characteristics of the Bearings market in the United States 

are conducive to a price-fixing agreement, and have made collusion particularly attractive. 

Specifically, the Bearings market: (1) has high barriers to entry; (2) has inelasticity of demand; 

(3) is highly concentrated; and (4) is rife with opportunities to conspire. 

1. The Bearings Market Has High Barriers to Entry. 

101. A collusive arrangement that raises product prices above competitive levels 

would, under basic economic principles, attract new entrants seeking to benefit from the 

supracompetitive pricing. Where, however, there are significant barriers to entry into a market, 

new market entrants are less likely. Thus, barriers to entry into a market can help to facilitate the 

formation and maintenance of a cartel in that market. 

102. There are substantial barriers that preclude, reduce, or make more difficult entry 

into the Bearings market. A new entrant into that market would face costly and lengthy start-up 

costs, including multi-million dollar costs associated with manufacturing plants and equipment, 

energy, transportation, distribution infrastructure, skilled labor, and overcoming longstanding 

customer relationships. 

103. Research and development is necessary for product innovation because 

participants in the Bearings market compete primarily based on product pricing. To compete 

effectively, an entrant must be committed to spending a significant amount of resources on 

research and development. 

104. Defendants also own several patents for Bearings. Those patents place a 

significant and costly burden on potential new entrants, who must avoid infringing on those 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 24 of 82 Pg ID 24
 25 

DM1\4908432.1 

patents (or obtain patent licenses from competitors) when entering the market with a new 

product. 

2. There is Inelasticity of Demand for Bearings. 

105. “Elasticity” is a term used to describe the sensitivity of supply and demand to 

changes in one or the other. For example, demand is said to be “inelastic” if an increase in the 

price of a product results in only a small (or no) decline in the quantity sold of that product. In 

ineclastic markets, customers have nowhere to turn for cheaper alternative products or services 

of similar quality, so they continue to purchase despite a price increase. 

106. For a cartel to profit from raising prices above competitive levels, demand must 

be relatively inelastic at competitive prices. Otherwise, increased prices would result in 

declining sales, revenues, and profits, as customers purchased substitute products or declined to 

buy altogether. Inelastic demand is a market characteristic that facilitates collusion because it 

allows producers to raise their prices without triggering customer substitution and lost sales 

revenue. 

107. Demand for Bearings is highly inelastic. This is because there are no close 

substitutes for these products. Additionally, customers must purchase Bearings as essential parts 

of a Vehicle, regardless of whether prices are kept at supra-competitive levels. Customers 

wanting to purchase a truck, bus, commercial vehicle, construction equipment vehicle, mining 

equipment vehicle, agricultural equipment vehicle, railway vehicle, or other similar vehicle 

simply have no choice but to purchase Bearings. 

3. The Market for Bearings is Highly Concentrated. 

108. A highly concentrated market is more susceptible to collusion and other 

anticompetitive practices. There is a high level of concentration among firms in the Bearings 

market. The top three suppliers of Bearings control nearly 75 percent of the U.S. market. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 25 of 82 Pg ID 25
 26 

DM1\4908432.1 

4. Defendants Had Ample Opportunities to Conspire 

109. Defendants attended industry events where they had the opportunity to meet, have 

improper discussions under the guise of legitimate business contacts, and perform acts necessary 

for the operation and furtherance of the conspiracy. According to one confidential witness who 

was the territory manager of a major Bearings manufacturer, employees of Defendants often ran 

into and spoke to one another at trade shows. 

110. In addition, SKF, NSK, NTN, Koyo, Nachi-Fujikoshi, and Schaeffler are six of 

the members of the seven-member World Bearing Association (“WBA”). The WBA is not 

registered, not incorporated, has no Articles of Association, has no record of any meetings and 

does not file documents with any government entity anywhere in the world. 

111. Golf outings organized by Bearings distributors presented additional opportunities 

for employees of the defendant companies to conspire. It was not uncommon for such golf 

outings to draw more employees from Bearings manufacturers than from distributors. 

Defendants’ employees were often paired together as part of the golf outings. 

112. During such meetings and golf outings, Defendants and their co-conspirators had 

the opportunity to engage in private meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss 

pricing and customer allocation for Bearings sold in the United States. 

113. Defendants also had opportunities to conspire and trade information pursuant to 

the numerous acquisitions in the Bearings industry over the past five years. For example, The 

Timken Company announced at the end of 2009 that it sold its Needle Roller Bearings business 

to JTEKT. 

114. On information and belief, Defendants also sell products, including Bearings, to 

one another as a general business practice. Defendants and their co-conspirators routinely 

produced and sold Bearings to each other. For example, at times, a particular manufacturer 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 26 of 82 Pg ID 26
 27 

DM1\4908432.1 

would shut down a product line (i.e. cease production of a particular size or type of bearing) 

while maintaining the item on its price list. If a customer ordered a product that was no longer 

being produced, the nonproducing manufacturer would purchase it from a competitor. To 

facilitate such purchase and sales transactions, senior level employees, a General Manager or 

President of the Defendant manufacturer, would meet or communicate to discuss and finalize 

these arrangements. These transactions provided numerous additional opportunities for 

Defendants to collude on customer allocation and pricing structures in the U.S. Bearings market. 

D. Government Investigations 

115. Globally-coordinated Investigations into the Bearings industry are underway in 

the United States, Canada, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, Japan, and Europe. 

116. The DOJ is conducting an investigation into the Bearings industry. In November 

2011 the DOJ served a subpoena on NTN’s “United States consolidated subsidiary requesting 

the submission of information related to transactions in bearings.” NTN’s 2013 Annual Report 

indicated that: (1) NTN and two of its former executives were indicted by the Tokyo District 

Prosecutors Office on suspicion of having violated Japan’s Antimonopoly Act, (2) NTN received 

a cease and desist order and surcharge payment order for ¥7.231 billion from the JFTC, (3) a 

consolidated subsidiary of NTN in South Korea underwent an on-site inspection by the Korea 

Fair Trade Commission in July of 2012, (4) NTN’s Singapore subsidiary underwent an 

inspection from Competition Commission Singapore, and (5) that NOT and its subsidiaries were 

under investigation by the authorities in the United States and European Union. 

117. Schaeffler’s 2013 Annual Report states that it and some of its subsidiaries are 

being investigated by several antitrust authorities, including those in the European Union, 

regarding possible agreements violating antitrust laws and has determined that the investigation 

by the EU antitrust authorities have become sufficiently concrete for the Schaeffler Group to 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 27 of 82 Pg ID 27
 28 

DM1\4908432.1 

recognize a provision in its consolidated financial statements in December 2013 for liability in 

the amount of EUR 380 million for the risk of a potential penalty. Schaeffler’s 2013 Annual 

Report further states that the amount of potential penalties arising out of the other pending 

antitrust investigations is “uncertain, but could be significant.” 

118. NSK’s 2013 Annual Report states that: (1) its subsidiary in the U.S. received a 

subpoena in connection with the DOJ’s Bearings investigation, (2) its manufacturing and sales 

subsidiary in South Korea was investigated by the Korea Fair Trade Commission in relation to 

the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, (3) its sales subsidiary in Singapore was 

investigated by the Competition Commission Singapore in relation to the Competition Act, and 

(4) its subsidiaries in “other countries” are “undergoing investigation by the relevant authorities.” 

119. SKF’s 2013 Annual Report indicates that it is part of the investigations by The 

European Commission, DOJ, and Korea Fair Trade Commission regarding possible antitrust 

violations in the bearings industry. 

120. The JFTC launched an investigation in July 2011 after Defendant JTEKT sought 

leniency by alerting the regulatory agency of the Bearings conspiracy. JTEKT voluntarily 

confessed to the conspiracy and was exempted from a criminal complaint by the JFTC. 

121. On July 26, 2011, the JFTC conducted on-site inspections of Defendants NSK, 

NTN, JTEKT and Nachi-Fujikoshi amid suspicions that the companies violated Japan’s 

antimonopoly law and fixed prices. 

122. In its 2011 Annual Report, NSK stated that it “intend[ed] to cooperate fully with 

the [JFTC] investigation” after acknowledging that “in July 2011 the Japan Fair Trade 

commission conducted on-site investigations of NSK on suspicion that sales of certain products 

infringed upon Japan’s Antimonopoly Act.” 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 28 of 82 Pg ID 28
 29 

DM1\4908432.1 

123. NTN reported in its 2011 Financial Report that: 

[i]n July, the Company underwent an on-site inspection by the 

Japan Fair Trade Commission into domestic transactions on 

bearings, on suspicion that the Company had decided to raise sale 

prices in cooperation with other manufacturers, and in April this 

year a search was carried out by special investigators from Tokyo 

District Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Fair Trade 

Commission. 

124. A press release on JTEKT’s website states that it was inspected by the Tokyo 

District Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 20, 2012. 

125. The Japan Times has reported that certain NTN officials have made statements 

admitting to their participation in the conspiracy to fix prices on bearings during voluntary 

questioning by Japanese prosecutors. Officials of NSK, JTEKT and Nachi-Fujikoshi have 

already admitted to their roles in the conspiracy. 

126. According to sources, the JFTC said it “believes the culture of collusion is 

ingrained in the bearing industry.” In 1973, the JFTC similarly found that NSK, Koyo Seiko Co. 

(currently JTEKT), Nachi-Fujikoshi and NTN Toyo Bearing Co. (currently NTN) formed a 

cartel and held secret meetings at which they fixed bearings prices. In 2002, the French Conseil 

de la Concurrence (Competition Council) fined four bearings manufacturers €19 million for their 

participation in a price-fixing cartel that was active from 1993 through 1997. The cartel included 

corporate entities related to three participants in the present Bearings price-fixing cartel: SKF, 

Schaeffler, and NSK. 

127. In the mid 1980’s, Japanese-based Bearings manufacturers, including the 

Defendants and/or their corporate parents (the “Japanese Defendants”) regularly colluded to fix 

sale prices for Bearings. During this time the executives of those companies participated in 

telephone conferences to discuss pricing for Bearings customers and markets. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 29 of 82 Pg ID 29
 30 

DM1\4908432.1 

128. The Japanese Defendants entered into mutual agreements not to compete for their 

Bearings customers. Their sales employees were not allowed to solicit business from Bearings 

customers from the other Japanese Defendants. If there was an issue about prices and customers, 

the supervisors of the Japanese Defendants would meet to determine who from their group would 

sell to a given Bearings customer and what price would be charged for the sale. 

129. On June 14, 2012, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) filed a criminal 

accusation that found a criminal violation of the Japan’s Antimonopoly Act against NSK Ltd, 

NTN Corp., and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. According to the Japan Times, the three companies have 

raised Bearings prices five times since 2004 and the JFTC believes that these price increases 

were the result of cartel activity. 

130. On November 8, 2011, the European Commission (“EC”) announced that it had 

made unannounced inspections at the premises of companies that manufacture Bearings over 

concerns that these companies may have violated antitrust rules. 

131. On July 15, 2013, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 

(“ACCC”) announced it had instituted civil proceedings in the Australian Federal Court against 

Koyo Australia Pty Ltd. (Koyo) – sister company of Defendant Koyo – for alleged cartel conduct 

relating to the supply of ball and roller bearings for use in motor vehicles. The ACCC alleges 

that Koyo and at least two of its competitors made and gave effect to cartel arrangements for an 

increase to the price of Bearings. 

E. Government Fines 

132. Nachi-Fujikoshi’s 2012 Business Report confirms that on December 28, 2012, 

Nachi-Fujikoshi and two of its executives were convicted in Tokyo District Court of violating 

Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. Keiichi Ogino, a former member of the company’s board of 

directors, was sentenced to fourteen months in prison and suspended for three years, and Michio 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 30 of 82 Pg ID 30
 31 

DM1\4908432.1 

Murai, a former deputy chief of the company’s Bearings Division, was sentenced to twelve 

months in prison and was also suspended for three years. The Tokyo District Court also issued a 

¥180 million criminal fine against Nachi-Fujikoshi. 

133. On February 25, 2013, Defendant NSK Ltd. announced that the company was 

sentenced to a penalty of ¥380 million by the Tokyo District Court for violation of the 

Antimonopoly Act of Japan regarding sales of Bearings as a result of the June 14, 2012 

prosecution by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. In addition, two of NSK’s former 

officers and a former employee received suspended sentences. Keisuke Takagawa and Katsumi 

Kuwabara, both former NSK senior vice presidents, were sentenced to fourteen months in prison, 

while NSK executive Yoshi Nishiyama was sentenced to twelve months in prison. 

134. On February 25, 2013, Nikkei Japan Business Newspaper reported that the 

presiding judge stated, “[t]he crime is malicious – large in scope and carried out systematically. 

Having the largest market share, NSK carried out the central role in this cartel.” 

135. On March 29, 2013 the JFTC issued Cease and Desist Orders against NTN Corp., 

NSK, Ltd. and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp, based on their violation of the Antimonopoly Act, through 

participation in a conspiracy to fix the prices of industrial machinery bearings and automotive 

bearings. All three companies were required to pay fines totaling ¥13.36 billion. 

136. JTEKT was also mentioned as a violator, but was not subject to a fine or cease 

and desist order due to its leniency status. 

137. The press release accompanying the Order stated that the violators “conspired in 

sales of industrial machinery bearings and automotive bearings.” 

138. JTEKT announced on July 13, 2013, that on July 12, 2013, it was ordered by the 

Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pay a $5 million fine for violating the Canadian Competition 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 31 of 82 Pg ID 31
 32 

DM1\4908432.1 

Act. It stated that it cooperated with the Canadian Competition Bureau and negotiated a plea 

agreement with the Bureau. JTEKT pleaded guilty to two counts of bid-rigging. 

139. JTEKT secretly conspired with NSK to submit bids or tenders in response to 

requests for quotations (“RFQs”). These agreements were reached, at least in part, through 

direct communications between JTEKT sales management level personnel and their counterparts 

at NSK, where the employees discussed, among other things, how to coordinate their respective 

responses. These discussions resulted in an agreement whereby JTEKT would win certain RFQs 

while NSK would win others. 

140. The Canadian Competition Bureau’s press release regarding the fine stated that 

“The Bureau became aware of the bearings cartel by way of its Immunity Program. Under the 

Immunity Program, the first party to disclose to the Bureau an offence not yet detected or to 

provide evidence leading to a referral of evidence to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada 

(PPSC) may receive immunity from the PPSC, provided that it fully cooperates with the 

Bureau’s investigation and any ensuing prosecution. Subsequent cooperating parties may 

receive lenient treatment under the Bureau’s Leniency Program. These programs provide 

powerful incentives for organizations and individuals to come forward and cooperate with the 

Bureau’s investigations. JTEKT participated in the Bureau’s Leniency Program and provided 

substantial assistance to the Bureau and the PPSC.” 

141. On January 30, 2014, the Canadian Competition Bureau announced that NSK had 

pleaded guilty to two counts of bid-rigging under the Canadian Competition Act in connection 

with automotive wheel hubs and was being fined $4.5 million for its participation in an 

international bid-rigging cartel involving Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 32 of 82 Pg ID 32
 33 

DM1\4908432.1 

142. On March 19, 2014, the EC announced that it had found that SKF, Schelffler, 

JTEKT, NKS, Nachi-Fujikoshi, and NTN had operated a cartel in the market for car and truck 

bearings and fined all those companies (excluding JTEKT, which benefitted from immunity for 

having revealed the existence of the cartel to the EC) a collective EUR 953 million. 

143. On August 19, 2014, China's National Development and Reform Commission 

announced that it had handed down a 174.92 million yuan penalty against NSK and a 119.16 

million yuan fine against NTN for violating China’s antitrust law in connection with the 

Bearings cartel. 

F. Criminal Pleas in the United States Related to Conspiracies in the 

Automotive Parts Industry 

144. A number of other manufacturers of other automotive parts have pleaded guilty, 

or agreed to plead guilty, to price fixing and bid rigging in the automotive parts industry, 

including: Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; Yazaki Corp.; G.S. Electech, Inc.; Fujikura Ltd.; Denso 

Corporation; Autoliv, Inc., and TRW Deutschland Holdings, GmBH, and Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd. 

These companies have pleaded guilty to engaging in price-fixing conduct with regard to 

Automotive Wire Harness Systems, Instrument Panel Clusters, Fuel Senders, Occupant Safety 

Systems and Heater Control Panels. These violators have paid almost $1 billion in fines. The 

majority of these violators pleaded guilty to engaging in bid-rigging, price-fixing, and market 

allocation during the same time period as the Class Period of the Bearings conspiracy, with 

multiple OEMs as their targets. 

G. Likely Existence of An Amnesty Applicant 

145. The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (“ACPERA”) 

provides leniency benefits for a participant in a price-fixing conspiracy that voluntarily discloses 

its conduct to the U.S. Department of Justice. In most recent cases in which guilty pleas for 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 33 of 82 Pg ID 33
 34 

DM1\4908432.1 

price-fixing conduct have been obtained, there has been a cooperating party who has been 

accepted into the DOJ’s ACPERA program as an amnesty applicant. One of the leniency 

benefits for a conspirator that is accepted into the ACPERA program is that the applicant is not 

charged with a criminal offense and is not required to plead guilty to criminal charges. 

146. In light of the multiple guilty pleas in related automotive parts antitrust cases, the 

DOJ’s ongoing investigation into the Bearings industry, the fine paid in Canada by JTEKT (as 

well as JTEKT’s admission of its participation in the price-fixing conspiracy), and the existence 

of an amnesty applicant in the JFTC proceedings, it is reasonable to infer that there is an 

ACPERA “amnesty applicant” in the DOJ’s Bearings investigation, as well. 

H. Damage to Plaintiffs and Class Members Caused by Defendants’ Illegal 

Activities. 

147. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott Hammond, recently stated that the 

automotive parts cartel is “the biggest [cartel] with respect to the impact on U.S. business and 

consumers.” 

148. Defendants’ conspiracy resulted in Defendants charging inflated prices to firms 

who directly purchased Bearings from them and in those purchasers raising their prices to 

subsequent purchasers. 

149. Having paid higher prices for components of the trucks, buses, commercial 

vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, 

and other similar vehicles they sold to Plaintiffs and the Classes and the Bearings they sold to 

Plaintiffs and the Classes, firms who sold such Bearings and Vehicles passed Defendants’ 

overcharges on to Plaintiffs and the Classes. 

150. Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to recover the overcharges they paid for 

Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 34 of 82 Pg ID 34
 35 

DM1\4908432.1 

151. Because, among other reasons, of the imperfect nature of competition among 

truck and equipment dealers and the differentiation among such dealers by brand and by 

location, Plaintiffs and the Classes had to and did absorb, at the very least, a significant portion 

of the overcharges that they paid due to Defendants’ illegal activities. 

152. Plaintiffs have standing and have suffered damage compensable by indirect 

purchaser laws and they and members of the classes they seek to represent have sustained 

significant damage and injury as a result of Defendants’ conspiracy. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

153. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under 

Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking equitable and injunctive 

relief on behalf of the following class (the “Nationwide Class”): 

All dealers of heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, medium-duty (Class 4, 

5, 6 & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction 

equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway 

vehicles, and other similar vehicles that during the Class Period, 

(a) purchased Bearings manufactured by the Defendants or any 

current or former subsidiary or affiliate thereof or any coconspirator, or (b) purchased Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by the Defendants or any current or former 

subsidiary, affiliate thereof or co-conspirator. 

154. Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under 

Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking damages pursuant to the 

antitrust, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and consumer protection laws of the states whose 

laws are set forth in the Second and Third Claims below, as well as the unjust enrichment laws of 

Missouri, Massachusetts and Illinois. The states whose laws are set forth in the Second and 

Third Claims below, as well as Missouri, Massachusetts, and Illinois, are collectively referred to 

as the “Indirect Purchaser States.” These claims are brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 35 of 82 Pg ID 35
 36 

DM1\4908432.1 

themselves and entities in the Indirect Purchaser States listed in the Second, Third and Fourth 

Claims as follows (the “Damages Class”): 

All dealers of heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, medium-duty (Class 4, 

5, 6 & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction 

equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway 

vehicles, and other similar vehicles in the Indirect Purchaser 

States, that, during the Class Period (a) purchased Bearings 

manufactured by one of the Defendants or any current or former 

subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator or (b) 

purchased Vehicles containing Bearings manufactured by one of 

the Defendants or any current or former subsidiary, affiliate or coconspirator thereof. 

155. The Nationwide Class and the Damages Class are referred to herein as the 

“Classes.” Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and 

affiliates, any co-conspirators, federal governmental entities, and instrumentalities of the federal 

government, states, and their subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. 

156. Although Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of the members of the Classes, 

Plaintiffs believe there are at least thousands of members in each Class. 

157. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. This is 

particularly true given the nature of Defendants’ conspiracy, which was generally applicable to 

all the members of both Classes, thereby making appropriate relief with respect to the Classes as 

a whole. Such questions of law and fact common to the Classes include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Whether Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination 

and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the 

prices of Bearings sold in the United States; 

(b) The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy; 

(c) The duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts carried out by 

Defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; 

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated the Sherman Act, as alleged in 

the First Claim for Relief; 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 36 of 82 Pg ID 36
 37 

DM1\4908432.1 

(e) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated state antitrust and unfair 

competition law, and/or state consumer protection law, as alleged in the 

Second and Third Claims for Relief; 

(f) Whether Defendants unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment of the 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and 

the members of the Classes to disgorgement of all benefits derived by 

Defendants, as alleged in the Fourth Claim for Relief; 

(g) Whether the conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators, as alleged in 

this Complaint, caused injury to the business or property of Plaintiffs and 

the members of the Classes; 

(h) The effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of Bearings sold in the 

United States during the Class Period; 

(i) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed 

the conspiracy’s existence from the Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Classes; 

(j) The appropriate injunctive and related equitable relief for the Nationwide 

Class; and 

(k) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages for the Damages Class. 

158. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes, and 

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiffs and all 

members of the Classes are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct because they 

paid artificially inflated prices for Bearings purchased indirectly from Defendants or their coconspirators. 

159. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same common course of conduct giving rise to 

the claims of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs’ interests are coincident with, and not 

antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel 

who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of antitrust and class action litigation. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 37 of 82 Pg ID 37
 38 

DM1\4908432.1 

160. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Classes 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual 

issues relating to liability and damages. 

161. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of the controversy, in that, among other things, such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort, and expense that 

numerous individual actions would engender. The benefits of proceeding through the class 

mechanism provide injured entities with a method for obtaining redress for claims that might not 

be practicable to pursue individually and substantially outweigh any difficulties that may arise in 

the management of this class action. 

162. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would 

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of 

conduct for Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY 

163. Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

(a) Price competition has been restrained or eliminated with respect to 

Bearings; 

(b) The prices of Bearings have been fixed, raised, maintained, or stabilized at 

artificially inflated levels; 

(c) Defendants charged purchasers of their Bearings inflated, fixed and 

stabilized prices for such Bearings; 

(d) Firms who sold Defendants’ Bearings and vehicles to Plaintiffs and the 

Classes passed Defendants’ overcharges on to them; 

(e) Defendants’ overcharges passed through each level of distribution as they 

traveled to Plaintiffs and the Classes; and 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 38 of 82 Pg ID 38
 39 

DM1\4908432.1 

(f) Bearing dealers purchasing Bearings and vehicles containing Bearings 

have been deprived of free and open competition and have paid inflated 

prices for Bearings. 

164. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes paid 

supracompetitive prices for Bearings, as a result of Defendants’ conspiracy. 

165. An increase in the prices of Bearings caused an increase in the prices of Vehicles 

during the Class Period. 

166. The market for Bearings and the markets for heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, 

medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6 & 7) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, 

mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other similar vehicles are 

inextricably linked and intertwined because the market for Bearings exists to serve the Vehicle 

market. The Bearings at issue in this complaint have no independent utility and little to no value 

aside from their value as Vehicle components. The Bearings at issue in this complaint must be 

installed in Vehicles to serve any function. Indeed, the demand for Vehicles creates the demand 

for Bearings. 

167. Bearings are identifiable, discrete physical products that remain essentially 

unchanged when incorporated into a Vehicle and are not altered during the manufacturing 

process. As a result, Bearings follow a traceable physical chain of distribution from the 

Defendants to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, and any costs attributable to Bearings 

can be traced through the chain of distribution to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes. 

168. Just as Bearings can be physically traced through the supply chain, so can their 

price be traced to show that changes in the prices paid by direct purchasers of Bearings affect 

prices paid by indirect purchasers of Vehicles containing Bearings. 

169. Bearings have their own unique part numbers, which permit them to be traced. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 39 of 82 Pg ID 39
 40 

DM1\4908432.1 

170. Bearings are pieces of sophisticated equipment that are necessary to permit the 

operate a Vehicle. 

171. Bearings are found in every modern vehicle and can be removed from a finished 

Vehicle and replaced. 

172. The Bearings at issue in this lawsuit only have one use: to be inserted into 

Vehicles. 

173. Bearings comprise a material portion of the cost of a Vehicle. 

174. The purpose of the conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants and their coconspirators was to raise, fix, rig, or stabilize the price of Bearings and, as a direct and 

foreseeable result, the price of new Vehicles containing Bearings and the price of Bearings 

purchased for repair purposes. Economists have developed techniques to isolate and understand 

the relationship between one “explanatory” variable and a “dependent” variable in those cases 

when changes in the dependent variable are explained by changes in a multitude of variables, 

even when all such variables may be changing simultaneously. That analysis—called regression 

analysis—is commonly used in the real world and in litigation to determine the impact of a price 

increase on one cost in a product or service that is an assemblage of costs. Thus, it is possible to 

isolate and identify only the impact of an increase in the price of Bearings on prices for new 

Vehicles even though such products contain a number of other components whose prices may be 

changing over time. A regression model can explain how variation in the price of Bearings 

affects changes in the price of new Vehicles. In such models, the price of Bearings would be 

treated as an independent or explanatory variable. The model can isolate how changes in the 

price of Bearings impact the price of new Vehicles containing Bearings while controlling for the 

impact of other price-determining factors. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 40 of 82 Pg ID 40
 41 

DM1\4908432.1 

175. The precise amount of the overcharge impacting the prices of new Vehicles 

containing Bearings can be measured and quantified. Commonly used and well-accepted 

economic models can be used to measure both the extent and the amount of the supracompetitive charge passed through the chain of distribution. Thus, the economic harm to 

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes can be quantified. 

176. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher 

prices for Bearings than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants’ illegal contract, 

combination, or conspiracy, and, as a result, have suffered damages in an amount presently 

undetermined. This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish 

and prevent and Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ damages are measureable. 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

I. The Statute of Limitations Did Not Begin to Run Because Plaintiffs Did Not 

and Could Not Discover the Claims 

177. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above. 

178. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had no knowledge of the combination 

or conspiracy alleged herein, or of facts sufficient to place them on inquiry notice of the claims 

set forth herein, until the public announcements of the government investigations into Bearings 

price-fixing began in July 2011. 

179. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes purchased Vehicles or purchased 

Bearings to replace or repair damaged, defective, or worn Bearings. 

180. No information in the public domain was available to the Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes prior to the public announcements of the government investigations 

beginning in July 2011 that revealed sufficient information to suggest that any one of the 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 41 of 82 Pg ID 41
 42 

DM1\4908432.1 

Defendants was involved in a criminal conspiracy to price-fix Bearings. Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes had no means of obtaining any facts or information concerning any 

aspect of Defendants’ dealings with OEMs or other direct purchasers, much less the fact that 

they had engaged in the combination and conspiracy alleged herein. 

181. For these reasons, the statute of limitations as to Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ 

claims did not begin to run, and has been tolled with respect to the claims that Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have alleged in this Complaint. 

J. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations 

182. In the alternative, the statutes of limitations on the claims asserted herein by 

Plaintiffs and the Classes are tolled pursuant to the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Classes did not discover, and could not discover through the exercise of 

reasonable diligence, the existence of the conspiracy alleged herein until the public 

announcement of the government investigations into Bearings price-fixing began. 

183. Because Defendants’ agreements, understandings and conspiracies were kept 

secret until July 2011, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were unaware before that time of 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and they did not know before then that they were paying 

supracompetitive prices for Bearings throughout the United States during the Class Period. 

184. The affirmative acts of the Defendants alleged herein, including acts in 

furtherance of the conspiracy, were wrongfully concealed and carried out in a manner that 

precluded detection. 

185. Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in meetings, conversations, and 

communications to discuss the price-fixing and bid-rigging conduct they engaged in to carry out 

their conspiracy. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 42 of 82 Pg ID 42
 43 

DM1\4908432.1 

186. By its very nature, Defendants’ anticompetitive conspiracy was inherently 

self-concealing. Bearings are not exempt from antitrust regulation and, thus, before July 2011, 

Plaintiffs reasonably considered the Bearings industry to be a competitive industry. 

Accordingly, a reasonable person under the circumstances would not have been alerted to begin 

to investigate the legitimacy of Defendants’ Bearings prices before July 2011. 

187. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes could not have discovered the alleged 

contract, conspiracy or combination at an earlier date by the exercise of reasonable diligence 

because of the deceptive practices and techniques of secrecy employed by the Defendants and 

their co-conspirators to avoid detection of, and fraudulently conceal, their contract, combination, 

or conspiracy. 

188. Because the alleged conspiracy was both self-concealing and affirmatively 

concealed by Defendants and their co-conspirators, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes had no 

knowledge of the alleged conspiracy or of any facts or information that would have caused a 

reasonably diligent person to investigate whether a conspiracy existed until July, 2011 when 

reports of the investigations into anticompetitive conduct concerning Bearings were first publicly 

disseminated. 

189. As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent concealment of their conspiracy, the running 

of any statute of limitations has been tolled with respect to any claims that Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have alleged in this Complaint. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 43 of 82 Pg ID 43
 44 

DM1\4908432.1 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class) 

190. Defendants and unnamed conspirators entered into and engaged in a contract, 

combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). 

191. The acts done by each of the Defendants as part of, and in furtherance of, their 

contract, combination, or conspiracy were authorized, ordered, or done by their officers, agents, 

employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of Defendants’ affairs. 

192. At least as early as January 1, 2004, and continuing until at least the filing of this 

Complaint, the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants and their co-conspirators 

entered into a continuing agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade to 

artificially fix, raise, stabilize, and control prices for Bearings, thereby creating anticompetitive 

effects. 

193. The anticompetitive acts were intentionally directed at the United States market 

for Bearings and had a substantial and foreseeable effect on interstate commerce by raising and 

fixing prices for Bearings throughout the United States. 

194. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable restraints in 

the market for Bearings. 

195. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated indirect purchasers in the Nationwide Class who purchased Bearings have been harmed 

by being forced to pay inflated, supracompetitive prices for Bearings and vehicles containing 

Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 44 of 82 Pg ID 44
 45 

DM1\4908432.1 

196. In formulating and carrying out the alleged agreement, understanding, and 

conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators did those things that they combined and 

conspired to do, including but not limited to the acts, practices, and course of conduct set forth 

herein. 

197. Defendants’ conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

(a) Price competition in the market for Bearings has been restrained, 

suppressed, and/or eliminated in the United States; 

(b) Prices for Bearings sold by Defendants and their coconspirators have been 

fixed, raised, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high, noncompetitive levels throughout the United States; 

(c) Prices for Vehicles purchased by Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Nationwide Class containing Bearings manufactured by Defendants and 

their coconspirators were inflated; and 

(d) Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class who purchased Bearings 

indirectly from Defendants have been deprived of the benefits of free and 

open competition. 

198. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class have been injured and will 

continue to be injured in their business and property by paying more for Bearings and Vehicles 

containing Bearings than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the conspiracy. 

199. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will continue to be subject to 

Defendants’ price-fixing, which will deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class of 

the benefits of free competition, including competitively-priced Bearings and Vehicles 

containing Bearings. 

200. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will continue to lose funds due to 

overpayment for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings because they are required to 

purchase Vehicles and Bearings to continue to operate their businesses. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 45 of 82 Pg ID 45
 46 

DM1\4908432.1 

201. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class continue to purchase Vehicles 

and Bearings on a regular basis. 

202. Vehicles and Bearings continue to be sold at inflated and supracompetitive prices. 

203. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

204. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will be at the mercy of 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct until the Court orders an injunction. 

205. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class are entitled to an injunction 

against Defendants preventing and restraining the violations alleged herein. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of State Antitrust Statutes 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class) 

206. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

207. From as early as January 1, 2004 until at least the filing of this Complaint, 

Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or 

conspiracy with respect to the sale of Bearings in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce 

and in violation of the various state antitrust statutes set forth below. 

208. The contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize and/or maintain artificially 

supracompetitive prices for Bearings in the United States. 

209. In formulating and effectuating this conspiracy, Defendants and their coconspirators performed acts in furtherance of the combination and conspiracy, including: 

(a) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves in the 

United States and elsewhere during which they agreed to price Bearings at 

certain levels, and otherwise to fix, increase, inflate, maintain, or stabilize 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 46 of 82 Pg ID 46
 47 

DM1\4908432.1 

effective prices paid by Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class with 

respect to Bearings sold in the United States; 

(b) allocating customers and markets for Bearings in the United States in 

furtherance of their agreements; and 

(c) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves in the 

United States and elsewhere to implement, adhere to, and police the 

unlawful agreements they reached. 

210. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in the actions described above for 

the purpose of carrying out their unlawful agreements to fix, maintain, decrease, or stabilize 

prices and to allocate customers with respect to Bearings. 

211. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing, willful, and 

constitute violations or flagrant violations of the following state antitrust statutes. 

212. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes, §§ 44-1401, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Arizona; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Arizona; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Arizona commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 47 of 82 Pg ID 47
 48 

DM1\4908432.1 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1401, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-

1401, et seq.

213. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the California Business and Professions Code, §§ 16700, et seq.

(a) During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into 

and engaged in a continuing unlawful trust in restraint of the trade and commerce described 

above in violation of Section 16720 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

Defendants, each of them, have acted in violation of Section 16720 to fix, raise, stabilize, and 

maintain prices of, and allocate markets for, Bearings at supracompetitive levels. 

(b) The aforesaid violations of Section 16720, California Business and 

Professions Code, consisted, without limitation, of a continuing unlawful trust and concert of 

action among the Defendants and their co-conspirators the substantial terms of which were to fix, 

raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of, and to allocate markets for, Bearings. 

(c) For the purpose of forming and effectuating the unlawful trust, the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators have done those things which they combined and conspired 

to do, including but in no way limited to the acts, practices and course of conduct set forth above 

and the following: (1) Fixing, raising, stabilizing, and pegging the price of Bearings; and (2) 

allocating among themselves the production of Bearings. 

(d) The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had, inter alia, the 

following effects upon the commerce of California: (1) Price competition in the sale of Bearings 

has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the State of California; (2) Prices for 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 48 of 82 Pg ID 48
 49 

DM1\4908432.1 

Bearings sold by Defendants and their co-conspirators have been fixed, raised, stabilized, and 

pegged at artificially high, non-competitive levels in the State of California and throughout the 

United States; and (3) Those who purchased Bearings or Vehicles containing Bearings 

manufactured by Defendants and their co-conspirators have been deprived of the benefit of free 

and open competition. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property in 

that they paid more for Bearings than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Section 16720 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek 

treble damages and their cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, pursuant to Section 

16750(a) of the California Business and Professions Code. 

214. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the District of Columbia Official Code §§ 28-4501, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout the District of 

Columbia; (2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high 

levels throughout the District of Columbia; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, 

including those who resided in the District of Columbia and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles 

in the District of Columbia, were deprived of free and open competition, including in the District 

of Columbia; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided 

in the District of Columbia and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in the District of Columbia, 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 49 of 82 Pg ID 49
 50 

DM1\4908432.1 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings, 

including in the District of Columbia. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

District of Columbia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available 

under District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq.

215. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-1, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings’ 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Hawaii; (2) Bearings’ 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Hawaii; 

(3) Plaintiff and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and 

(4) Plaintiff and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices 

for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Hawaii commerce. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 50 of 82 Pg ID 50
 51 

DM1\4908432.1 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiff and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and 

are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-4, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available 

under Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-4, et seq. 

216. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Iowa; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Iowa; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Iowa commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et 

seq.

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 51 of 82 Pg ID 51
 52 

DM1\4908432.1 

217. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, §§ 50-101, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Kansas; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Kansas; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Kansas commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Kansas Stat. Ann. §§ 50-101, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Kansas Stat. Ann. §§ 50-

101, et seq. 

218. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Maine Revised Statutes, Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Maine; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Maine; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 52 of 82 Pg ID 52
 53 

DM1\4908432.1 

open competition: and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Maine commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Maine Rev. Stat. 

Ann. 10. §§ 1101, et seq.

219. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated §§ 445.771, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Michigan; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Michigan; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Michigan commerce. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 53 of 82 Pg ID 53
 54 

DM1\4908432.1 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 445.771, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Michigan Comp. 

Laws Ann. §§ 445.771, et seq.

220. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in unreasonable restraint of 

trade in violation of the Minnesota Statutes Annotated §§ 325D.49, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Minnesota; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Minnesota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Minnesota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Minnesota Stat. §§ 325D.49, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 54 of 82 Pg ID 54
 55 

DM1\4908432.1 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Minnesota Stat. §§ 325D.49, et 

seq.

221. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 75-21-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Mississippi; 

(2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Mississippi; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who 

resided in Mississippi and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in Mississippi were deprived of 

free and open competition, including in Mississippi: and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in Mississippi and/or purchased Bearings or 

Vehicles in Mississippi paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings, including 

in Mississippi. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Mississippi commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Mississippi Code Ann. § 75-21-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Mississippi Code Ann. § 75-

21-1, et seq.

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 55 of 82 Pg ID 55
 56 

DM1\4908432.1 

222. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nebraska; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Nebraska; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Nebraska commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Nebraska Revised 

Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq.

223. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 598A.010, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nevada; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Nevada; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 56 of 82 Pg ID 56
 57 

DM1\4908432.1 

resided in Nevada and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in Nevada, were deprived of free and 

open competition including in Nevada; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, 

including those who resided in Nevada and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in Nevada, paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings, 

including in Nevada. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Nevada commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 598A.060, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Nevada Rev. Stat. 

Ann. §§ 598A.010, et seq.

224. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New 

Hampshire; (2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high 

levels throughout New Hampshire; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 57 of 82 Pg ID 57
 58 

DM1\4908432.1 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

New Hampshire commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New Hampshire 

Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq.

225. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated §§ 57-1-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Mexico; 

(2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout New Mexico; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

New Mexico commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 58 of 82 Pg ID 58
 59 

DM1\4908432.1 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of New Mexico Stat. Ann. §§ 57-1-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New Mexico Stat. 

Ann.§§ 57-1-1, et seq.

226. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New York General Business Laws §§ 340, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New York; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout New York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who 

resided in New York and/or purchased Bearings or vehicles in New York, were deprived of free 

and open competition, including in New York; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class, including those who resided in New York, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated 

prices for Bearings when they purchased, including in New York, Bearings or Vehicles 

containing Bearings, or purchased, including in New York, Bearings or Vehicles that were 

otherwise of lower quality, than would have been absent the conspirators’ illegal acts, or were 

unable to purchase Bearings or Vehicles that they would have otherwise have purchased absent 

the illegal conduct. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

New York commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 59 of 82 Pg ID 59
 60 

DM1\4908432.1 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of the New York Donnelly Act, §§ 340, et seq. The conduct set 

forth above is a per se violation of the Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class seek all relief available under New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 340, et seq.

227. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the North Carolina General Statutes §§ 75-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North 

Carolina; (2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high 

levels throughout North Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including 

those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in North Carolina, 

were deprived of free and open competition, including in North Carolina; and (4) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased 

Bearings or Vehicles in North Carolina, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Bearings and Vehicles including in North Carolina. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

North Carolina commerce. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(c) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under North Carolina Gen. 

Stat. §§ 75-1, et seq.

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 60 of 82 Pg ID 60
 61 

DM1\4908432.1 

228. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the North Dakota Century Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North Dakota; 

(2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout North Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of 

free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on North Dakota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of North Dakota Cent. Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under North Dakota Cent. 

Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq.

229. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Oregon; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Oregon; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 61 of 82 Pg ID 61
 62 

DM1\4908432.1 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Oregon commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Oregon Revised 

Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq.

230. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 37-1-3.1., et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout South Dakota; 

(2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout South Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who 

resided in South Dakota and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in South Dakota, were deprived 

of free and open competition including in South Dakota; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in South Dakota and/or purchased Vehicles or 

Bearings in South Dakota, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and 

Vehicles containing Bearings including in South Dakota. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 62 of 82 Pg ID 62
 63 

DM1\4908432.1 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Dakota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of South Dakota Codified Laws Ann. §§ 37-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under South Dakota 

Codified Laws Ann. §§ 37-1, et seq.

231. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-25-101, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Tennessee; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Tennessee; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who 

resided in Tennessee and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in Tennessee, were deprived of free 

and open competition including in Tennessee; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class, including those who resided in Tennessee, and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in 

Tennessee, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles 

containing Bearings including in Tennessee. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Tennessee commerce. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 63 of 82 Pg ID 63
 64 

DM1\4908432.1 

conduct, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and 

property and are threatened with further injury. 

(c) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Tennessee Code Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Tennessee Code 

Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq.

232. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Utah; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Utah; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Utah commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Utah Code 

Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq.

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 64 of 82 Pg ID 64
 65 

DM1\4908432.1 

233. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. §§ 2451, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Vermont; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Vermont commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. §§ 2451, et seq. Plaintiffs are entitled to 

relief pursuant to 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. § 2465 and any other applicable authority. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under 9 Vermont Stat. 

Ann. §§ 2451, et seq.

234. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout West Virginia; 

(2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 65 of 82 Pg ID 65
 66 

DM1\4908432.1 

throughout West Virginia; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those 

who resided in West Virginia and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in West Virginia, were 

deprived of free and open competition including in West Virginia; and (4) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in West Virginia and/or purchased 

Vehicles or Bearings in West Virginia, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings including in West Virginia. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on West Virginia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of West Virginia §§ 47-18-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under West Virginia §§ 47-18-1, et seq.

235. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Wisconsin Statutes §§ 133.01, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Wisconsin; (2) 

Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout Wisconsin; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 66 of 82 Pg ID 66
 67 

DM1\4908432.1 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Wisconsin commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01, et seq.

236. Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class in each of the above states have 

been injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants’ unlawful combination, 

contract, conspiracy, and agreement. Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have paid 

more for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings than they otherwise would have paid in the 

absence of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. This injury is of the type the antitrust laws of the 

above states were designed to prevent and flows from that which makes Defendants’ conduct 

unlawful. 

237. In addition, Defendants have profited significantly from the aforesaid conspiracy. 

Defendants’ profits derived from their anticompetitive conduct come at the expense and 

detriment of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class. 

238. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class in each of the 

above jurisdictions seek damages (including statutory damages where applicable), to be trebled 

or otherwise increased as permitted by a particular jurisdiction’s antitrust law, and costs of suit, 

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted by the above state laws. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 67 of 82 Pg ID 67
 68 

DM1\4908432.1 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes 

on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class 

239. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege, as though fully set forth herein, each and every 

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 

240. Defendants knowingly engaged in unlawful, unfair competition or unfair, 

unconscionable, deceptive, or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the state consumer 

protection and unfair competition statutes listed below. 

241. Defendants have knowingly entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of 

trade in violation of the Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-101. 

(a) Defendants knowingly agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or 

commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining at non-competitive and artificially 

inflated levels, the prices at which Bearings were sold, distributed, or obtained in Arkansas and 

took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable” and “deceptive” acts or practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 

4-88-107(a)(10). 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Arkansas; (2) Bearings 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Arkansas; (3) Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(d) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 68 of 82 Pg ID 68
 69 

DM1\4908432.1 

(e) Arkansas commerce and consumers. 

(f) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the 

Defendants, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business 

and property and are threatened with further injury. 

(g) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-107(a)(10) and, accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

242. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code 

§ 17200, et seq.

(a) During the Class Period, Defendants marketed, sold, or distributed 

Bearings in California, and committed and continue to commit acts of unfair competition, as 

defined by Sections 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code, by engaging 

in the acts and practices specified above. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

California commerce and consumers. 

(c) This claim is instituted pursuant to Sections 17203 and 17204 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, to obtain restitution from these Defendants for acts, as 

alleged herein, that violated Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, 

commonly known as the Unfair Competition Law. 

(d) The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violated Section 17200. The 

acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of Defendants, as alleged 

herein, constituted a common, continuous, and continuing course of conduct of unfair 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 69 of 82 Pg ID 69
 70 

DM1\4908432.1 

competition by means of unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices within the 

meaning of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq., including, but not 

limited to, the following: (1) the violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as set forth above; 

(2) the violations of Section 16720, et seq., of the California Business and Professions Code, set 

forth above; 

(e) Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and 

nondisclosures, as described above, whether or not in violation of Section 16720, et seq., of the 

California Business and Professions Code, and whether or not concerted or independent acts, are 

otherwise unfair, unconscionable, unlawful or fraudulent; 

(f) Defendants’ acts or practices are unfair to purchasers of Bearings (or 

Vehicles containing them) in the State of California within the meaning of Section 17200, 

California Business and Professions Code; and 

(g) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout California; (2) Bearings 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

California; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in 

California and/ or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in California, were deprived of free and open 

competition, including in California; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, 

including those who resided in California and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in California, 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings, 

including in California. 

(h) Defendants’ acts and practices are unlawful, fraudulent or deceptive 

within the meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 70 of 82 Pg ID 70
 71 

DM1\4908432.1 

(i) The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no indication 

that Defendants will not continue such activity into the future. 

(j) The unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices of 

Defendants, and each of them, as described above, have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Damages Class to pay supracompetitive and artificially-inflated prices 

for Bearings (or Vehicles containing them). Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class 

suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition. 

(k) As alleged in this Complaint, Defendants and their co-conspirators have 

been unjustly enriched as a result of their wrongful conduct and by Defendants’ unfair 

competition. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are accordingly entitled to 

equitable relief including restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, 

compensation, and benefits that may have been obtained by Defendants as a result of such 

business practices, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17203 and 

17204. 

243. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unlawful, unfair, 

unconscionable, or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Florida; (2) Bearings 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Florida; 

(3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; 

(4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated 

prices for Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 71 of 82 Pg ID 71
 72 

DM1\4908432.1 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Florida commerce and consumers. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unlawful, unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of Florida Stat. § 501.201, et seq., and, accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

244. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the New Mexico Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining at non-competitive and artificially inflated 

levels, the prices at which Bearings were sold, distributed, or obtained in New Mexico and took 

efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) Plaintiffs were not aware of Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy and were 

therefore unaware that they were being unfairly and illegally overcharged. There was a gross 

disparity of bargaining power between the parties with respect to the price charged by 

Defendants for Bearings. Defendants had the sole power to set that price and Plaintiffs had no 

power to negotiate a lower price. Moreover, Plaintiffs lacked any meaningful choice in 

purchasing Bearings because they were unaware of the unlawful overcharge and because they 

had to purchase Bearings as part of the Vehicles they had to purchase in order to operate their 

dealerships and in order to be able to repair Vehicles through their dealerships. Defendants’ 

conduct with regard to sales of Bearings, including their illegal conspiracy to secretly fix the 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 72 of 82 Pg ID 72
 73 

DM1\4908432.1 

price of Bearings at supracompetitive levels and overcharge consumers, was substantively 

unconscionable because it was one-sided and unfairly benefited Defendants at the expense of 

Plaintiffs and the public. Defendants took grossly unfair advantage of Plaintiffs. 

(c) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable trade practices,” in violation of N.M.S.A.§ 57-12-3, in that such conduct, inter 

alia, resulted in a gross disparity between the value received by Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Damages Class and the prices paid by them for Bearings as set forth in N.M.S.A. § 57-12-2E, 

due to the inflated prices paid by Plaintiffs and Class members for Vehicles and Bearings. 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Mexico; (2) Bearings prices were raised, 

fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New Mexico; (3) Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated 

prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(d) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

New Mexico commerce and consumers. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the 

Defendants, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business 

and property and are threatened with further injury. 

(f) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of New Mexico Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

the members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 73 of 82 Pg ID 73
 74 

DM1\4908432.1 

245. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.

(a) Defendants agree to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the 

prices at which Bearings were sold, distributed, or obtained in New York and took efforts to 

conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) Defendants deceptively led purchasers, such as Plaintiffs and Class 

members, to believe that the Bearings they had purchased as replacements and as component 

parts of Vehicles had been sold at legal competitive prices, when they had in fact been sold at 

collusively obtained inflated prices, that were passed on to them. 

(c) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumeroriented deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, which 

resulted in injuries to purchasers and broad adverse impact on the public at large, and harmed the 

public interest of New York State in an honest marketplace in which economic activity is 

conducted in a competitive manner. 

(d) Because of Defendants’ unlawful trade practices in the State of New York, 

New York purchasers who indirectly purchased Bearings were misled to believe that they were 

paying a fair price for Bearings or the price increases for Bearings were for valid business 

reasons; and similarly situated purchasers were potentially affected by Defendants’ conspiracy. 

(e) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New York; (2) Bearings 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New 

York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, who resided in and/or made purchases 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 74 of 82 Pg ID 74
 75 

DM1\4908432.1 

of Vehicles or Bearings in New York, were deprived of free and open competition and were 

subject to Defendants’ deceptive practices in New York; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, who resided in and/or made purchases of Vehicles and Bearings in New York, 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings, 

and were subjected to Defendants’ deceptive practices. 

(f) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Bearings would have an impact on all purchasers in New York and not just the Defendants’ 

direct customers. 

(g) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Bearings would have a broad impact, causing class members who indirectly purchased Bearings 

to be injured by paying more for Bearings than they would have paid in the absence of 

Defendants’ unlawful trade acts and practices. 

(h) During the Class Period, Defendants marketed, sold, or distributed 

Bearings in New York and their illegal conduct substantially affected New York commerce and 

New York purchasers. 

(i) During the Class Period, each of the Defendants named herein, directly, or 

indirectly and through affiliates they dominated and controlled manufactured, sold, and/or 

distributed Bearings in New York. 

(j) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available 

pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h). 

246. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 75 of 82 Pg ID 75
 76 

DM1\4908432.1 

(a) Defendants agree to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the 

prices at which Bearings were sold, distributed, or obtained in North Carolina and took efforts to 

conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumeroriented deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of North Carolina law, which resulted in 

injuries to purchasers of Bearings and Vehicles, and broad adverse impact on the public at large, 

and harmed the public interest of North Carolina purchasers in an honest marketplace in which 

economic activity is conducted in a competitive manner. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects upon purchasers 

of Bearings in North Carolina: (1) Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and 

eliminated throughout North Carolina; (2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Bearings or 

Vehicles in North Carolina, were deprived of free and open competition including in North 

Carolina; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in 

North Carolina and/or purchased Bearings or Vehicles in North Carolina, paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings including in North 

Carolina. 

(d) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

North Carolina commerce and purchasers of Bearings and vehicles. Defendants’ price-fixing 

conspiracy could not have succeeded absent deceptive conduct by Defendants to cover up their 

illegal acts. Secrecy was integral to the formation, implementation and maintenance of 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 76 of 82 Pg ID 76
 77 

DM1\4908432.1 

Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy. Defendants committed inherently deceptive and 

self-concealing actions, of which Plaintiffs could not possibly have been aware. Moreover, 

Defendants deceptively concealed their unlawful activities by conducting meetings and 

conversations in secret. 

(e) During the Class Period, each of the Defendants named herein, directly, or 

indirectly and through affiliates they dominated and controlled, manufactured, marketed, sold 

and/or distributed Bearings in North Carolina. 

(f) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek actual damages for 

their injuries caused by these violations in an amount to be determined at trial and are threatened 

with further injury. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

247. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Bearings price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout South 

Carolina; (2) Bearings prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high 

levels throughout South Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Carolina commerce. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 77 of 82 Pg ID 77
 78 

DM1\4908432.1 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

the members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

248. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq.

(a) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

in a market that includes Vermont, by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at 

artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at which Bearings were sold, distributed, or 

obtained in Vermont. 

(b) Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful activities and artificially 

inflated prices for Bearings. Defendants owed a duty to disclose such facts, and Defendants 

breached that duty by their silence. Defendants misrepresented to all purchasers during the Class 

Period that Defendants’ Bearings prices were competitive and fair. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Bearings 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Vermont; (2) Bearings 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supra-competitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Bearings and Vehicles containing Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 78 of 82 Pg ID 78
 79 

DM1\4908432.1 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of law, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property 

as a result of Defendants’ use or employment of unconscionable and deceptive commercial 

practices as set forth above. That loss was caused by Defendants’ willful and deceptive conduct, 

as described herein. 

(e) Defendants’ deception, including their affirmative misrepresentations and 

omissions concerning the price of Bearings, likely misled all purchasers acting reasonably under 

the circumstances to believe that they were purchasing Bearings at prices set by a free and fair 

market. Defendants’ misleading conduct and unconscionable activities constitute unfair 

competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq., 

and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under 

that statute. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Unjust Enrichment 

on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class 

249. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

250. Plaintiffs bring this claim under the laws of all states listed in the Second and 

Third Claims, supra, excluding California. Plaintiffs also bring this claim under the laws of 

Missouri, Massachusetts and Illinois on behalf of the Plaintiffs who have their primary places of 

business in those three states and the class members in those three states. 

251. As a result of their unlawful conduct described above, Defendants have and will 

continue to be unjustly enriched. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the receipt of, at a 

minimum, unlawfully inflated prices and unlawful profits on sales of Bearings. 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 79 of 82 Pg ID 79
 80 

DM1\4908432.1 

252. Defendants have benefited from their unlawful acts and it would be inequitable 

for Defendants to be permitted to retain any of the ill-gotten gains resulting from the 

overpayments made by Plaintiffs or the members of the Damages Class for Bearings. 

253. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are entitled to the amount of 

Defendants’ ill-gotten gains resulting from their unlawful, unjust, and inequitable conduct. 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are entitled to the establishment of a 

constructive trust consisting of all ill-gotten gains from which Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Damages Class may make claims on a pro rata basis. 

254. Pursuit of any remedies against the firms from whom Plaintiffs and the Class 

members purchased Vehicles containing Bearings and Bearings subject to Defendants’ 

conspiracy would have been futile, given that those firms did not take part in Defendants’ 

conspiracy. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that: 

A. The Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under 

Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and direct that reasonable 

notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be 

given to each and every member of the Classes; 

B. The unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination alleged herein be 

adjudged and decreed: 

(a) An unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 

of the Sherman Act; 

(b) A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 80 of 82 Pg ID 80
 81 

DM1\4908432.1 

(c) An unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding, and/or concert 

of action in violation of the state antitrust and unfair competition and consumer protection laws 

as set forth herein; and 

(d) Acts of unjust enrichment by Defendants as set forth herein. 

C. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class recover damages, to the 

maximum extent allowed under such laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class be entered against Defendants in an amount to 

be trebled to the extent such laws permit; 

D. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class recover damages, to the 

maximum extent allowed by such laws, in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of profits 

unlawfully gained from them; 

E. Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and other officers, 

directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act 

on their behalf or in concert with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any 

manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination 

alleged herein, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy, or combination having a 

similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device 

having a similar purpose or effect; 

F. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class be awarded restitution, 

including disgorgement of profits Defendants obtained as a result of their acts of unfair 

competition and acts of unjust enrichment; 

2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 81 of 82 Pg ID 81
2:14-cv-13356-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/29/14 Pg 82 of 82 Pg ID 82