UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

 ) 

 ) 

CESAR-SCOTT, INC., ) 

PAESANO CONNECTING SYSTEMS, INC., )

MEXICAN INDUSTRIES IN MICHIGAN, ) 

INC., ) 

MARTINEZ ) 

MANUFACTURING, INC., ) 

SOUTH STAR CORPORATION, ) 

CRAFT-CO ENTERPRISES, INC., and ) 

FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, INC., ) 

on behalf of themselves and all others ) 

similarly situated, ) Case No. 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 v. ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 ) 

LEONI BORDNETZ-SYSTEME GMBH, ) 

LEONI WIRING SYSTEMS INC., ) 

and LEONISCHE HOLDING, INC., ) 

 )

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

__________________________________________) 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

1. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class described below, 

bring this class action against Defendants for damages and injunctive relief under 

the antitrust laws of the United States on behalf of direct purchasers who, during 

the Class Period, purchased Wire Harness Products, as defined below, in the United 

States from one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Defendants and 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 1 of 42 Pg ID 1
2

their co-conspirators are manufacturers or sellers of Wire Harness Products that 

are manufactured or sold in the United States. 

2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to 

rig bids for, and to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of, Wire Harness 

Products sold in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2000 until at 

least February 28, 2010 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs 

further allege that Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed 

their conspiracy. 

3. As a result of Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid higher prices for Wire Harness Products 

than they would have paid in a competitive market. 

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain injunctive relief and to recover 

damages, including treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as a 

result of Defendants’ and their co-conspirators violations of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

5. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to Sections 4(a) and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, and 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 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 has 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 2 of 42 Pg ID 2
3

been carried out in this District, and one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators reside in this District. 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants 

because each Defendant, either directly or through the ownership or control of its 

United States subsidiaries: (a) transacted business in the United States, including 

in this District; (b) directly or indirectly sold or marketed substantial quantities of 

Wire Harness Products throughout the United States, including in this District; (c) 

had substantial aggregate contacts with the United States as a whole, including in 

this District; or (d) was engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy that was 

directed at, and had a direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable and intended 

effect of causing injury to, the business or property of persons and entities residing 

in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including in this 

District. Defendants conduct business throughout the United States, including in 

this District, and they have purposefully availed themselves of the laws of the 

United States. 

7. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in conduct both inside 

and outside of the United States that caused direct, substantial and reasonably 

foreseeable and intended anti-competitive effects upon interstate commerce within 

the United States. 

8. Alternatively, there is jurisdiction over foreign Defendants pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 3 of 42 Pg ID 3
4

DEFINITIONS

9. The “Class Period” is from January 1, 2000 through the present. 

10. The term “Wire Harness Products,” as used in this Complaint, refers to 

wire harnesses and the following related products: automotive electrical wiring, 

lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring 

terminals, high voltage wiring, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, 

junction blocks, power distributors and speed sensor wire assemblies used in motor 

vehicles. 

11. Wire harnesses are electrical distribution systems used to direct and control 

electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in motor vehicles. 

12. “Defendant” or “Defendants” as used herein, includes all of the named 

Defendants’ predecessors during the Class Period. 

TRADE AND COMMERCE

13. During the Class Period each Defendant sold Wire Harness Products 

in the United States, in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate 

commerce. 

14. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators 

collectively controlled a majority of the market for Wire Harness Products, both 

globally and in the United States. 

15. The business activities of the Defendants and their co-conspirators 

substantially affected interstate trade and commerce in the United States. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 4 of 42 Pg ID 4
5

THE PARTIES 

Plaintiffs 

16. Plaintiff Mexican Industries in Michigan, Inc. by and through Timothy 

Miller, its Trustee in Bankruptcy (“Mexican Industries”) is a Michigan corporation 

with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff Mexican 

Industries purchased Wire Harness Products directly from one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

17. Plaintiff Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc. (“Paesano”) is a 

Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Ridgway, 

Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Paesano purchased Wire Harness Products directly from 

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

18. Plaintiff Craft-Co Enterprises, Inc. (“Craft-Co”) is a Mississippi 

corporation with its principal place of business in Brandon, Mississippi. Plaintiff 

Craft-Co purchased Wire Harness Products directly from one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

19. Plaintiff Findlay Industries, Inc. (“Findlay”) is an Ohio corporation 

with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. Plaintiff Findlay purchased 

Wire Harness Products directly from one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

20. Plaintiff Cesar-Scott, Inc. (“Cesar-Scott”) is a Texas corporation with 

its principal place of business in El Paso, Texas. Plaintiff Cesar-Scott purchased 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 5 of 42 Pg ID 5
6

Wire Harness Products directly from one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

21. Plaintiff Martinez Manufacturing, Inc. (“Martinez”) is an Illinois 

corporation with its principal place of business in Cary, Illinois. Plaintiff Martinez 

purchased Wire Harness Products directly from one or more of the Defendants or 

their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

22. Plaintiff South Star Corporation (“South Star”) is a Virginia 

corporation with its principal place of business in Elliston, Virginia. Plaintiff South 

Star purchased Wire Harness Products directly from one or more of the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators during the Class Period.

Defendants 

23. Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Tucson, Arizona. Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc. also maintains 

operations in Warren, Michigan. Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc. is a part of the LEONI 

Group’s Wiring Systems Division. Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc. is an indirect 

corporate subsidiary of Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme GmbH. Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc. 

manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased in the 

United States during the Class Period. 

24. Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme GmbH is a German limited liability company 

with its principal place of business in Kitzingen, Germany. Leoni BordnetzSysteme GmbH is part of the LEONI Group. Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme GmbH is 

part of the LEONI Group’s Wiring Systems Division. Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 6 of 42 Pg ID 6
7

GmbH—directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates, which it wholly-owned or 

controlled—manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were 

purchased in the United States during the Class Period. 

25. Leonische Holding, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Tucson, Arizona. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, which 

it wholly-owned or controlled, Leonische Holding, Inc. manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased in the United States during 

the Class period. 

26. Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc., Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme GmbH, and 

Leonische Holding, Inc. shall collectively be referred to herein as the “Defendants” 

or “Leoni.” 

The Leoni Defendants operate collaboratively under the aegis of the LEONI 

Group. 

27. The LEONI Group is composed of Leoni AG, a holding company, which 

performs a range of corporate functions for the LEONI Group, and two business 

segments, Wiring Systems and Wire and Cable Solutions. The Wiring Systems 

Division and the Wire and Cable Solutions Division are subdivided into specific 

business groups and units. 

28. Subsidiaries within the Wiring Systems Division, including Leoni 

Wiring Systems, Inc. and Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme GmbH, manufacture and sell 

Wire Harness Products. These sales accounted for 57.9% of the LEONI Group’s 

2012 consolidated sales. The LEONI Group’s Wiring Systems Division is fourth in 

worldwide sales. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 7 of 42 Pg ID 7
8

Co-Conspirators 

Denso 

29. Co-conspirator Denso Corporation is a Japanese corporation. Coconspirator Denso Corporation – directly or through its subsidiaries, which it 

wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness 

Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period. 

30. Co-conspirator Denso International America, Inc. is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in Southfield, Michigan. It is a 

subsidiary of and wholly-owned or controlled by its parent, Denso Corporation. Coconspirator Denso International America, Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire 

Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the 

United States were under the control and direction of Denso Corporation. 

31. Co-conspirators Denso Corporation and Denso International America, 

Inc. shall collectively be referred to herein as the “Denso Co-Conspirators” or 

“Denso.” 

Fujikura 

32. Co-conspirator Fujikura Ltd. is a Japanese corporation. Coconspirator Fujikura Ltd. – directly or through its subsidiaries, which it whollyowned or controlled – manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 8 of 42 Pg ID 8
9

were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period. 

33. Co-conspirator Fujikura Automotive America LLC is a Limited 

Liability Company with its principal place of business in Novi, Michigan. It is a 

subsidiary of and wholly owned or controlled by its parent, Fujikura Ltd. Coconspirator Fujikura Automotive America LLC manufactured, marketed or sold 

Wire Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, 

including in this District, during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its 

activities in the United States were under the control and direction of Fujikura Ltd. 

34. Co-conspirators Fujikura Ltd. and Fujikura Automotive America LLC 

shall collectively be referred to herein as the “Fujikura Co-Conspirators” or 

“Fujikura.” 

Furukawa 

35. Co-conspirator Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation. 

Co-conspirator Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. – directly or through its subsidiaries, 

which it wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, marketed or sold Wire 

Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. 

36. Co-conspirator American Furukawa, Inc. is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in Plymouth, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of and 

wholly-owned or controlled by its parent, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd. Coconspirator American Furukawa, Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 9 of 42 Pg ID 9
10

Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the 

United States were under the control and direction of Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. 

37. Co-Conspirator Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. f/k/a 

Furukawa Lear Corporation and Lear Furukawa Corporation is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in El Paso, Texas. Furukawa Wiring 

Systems America, Inc. is 60% owned by Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and 40% owned 

by American Furukawa, Inc. During the Class Period, Furukawa Wiring Systems 

America, Inc. operated as a joint venture between Lear Corporation and Furukawa 

Electric Co., Ltd. that manufactured, distributed or sold Wire Harness Products 

that were purchased throughout United States, including in this District. In June 

2010, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. purchased all of Lear’s Corporation’s remaining 

interest. 

38. Co-conspirators Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd., American Furukawa, Inc. 

and Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. shall collectively be referred to herein 

as the “Furukawa Co-Conspirators” or “Furukawa.”

G.S. Electech 

39. Co-conspirator G.S. Electech, Inc. is a Japanese corporation. Coconspirator G.S. Electech, Inc. – directly or through its subsidiaries, which it 

wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness 

Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 10 of 42 Pg ID 10
11

40. Co-conspirator G.S. Wiring Systems Inc. is an Ohio corporation with 

its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. It is a subsidiary of and whollyowned or controlled by its parent, G.S. Electech, Inc. Co-conspirator G.S. Wiring 

Systems Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were 

purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the Class 

Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the 

control and direction of G.S. Electech, Inc. 

41. Co-conspirator G.S.W. Manufacturing Inc. is an Ohio corporation with 

its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. It is a subsidiary of and whollyowned or controlled by its parent, G.S. Electech, Inc. Co-conspirator G.S.W. 

Manufacturing Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that 

were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were 

under the control and direction of G.S. Electech, Inc. 

42. Co-conspirators G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S. Wiring Systems Inc., and 

G.S.W. Manufacturing Inc. shall collectively be referred to herein as the “G.S. 

Electech Co-Conspirators” or “G.S. Electech.” 

Lear 

43. Co-conspirator Lear Corporation (“Lear”) is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in Southfield, Michigan. Lear directly or 

through its subsidiaries, which it wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 11 of 42 Pg ID 11
12

marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased throughout the 

United States, including in this District, during the Class Period.

44. Lear filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on July 7, 2009. After 

its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009, Lear 

continued to sell Wire Harness Products pursuant to and as part of its participation 

in furtherance of the conspiracy. From and after November 2009, Lear had 

significant Wire Harness Products sales in the United States at supra-competitive 

prices. In 2010 alone, Lear had $2.56 billion in total sales in its electric power and 

management systems, which includes significant sales of Wire Harness Products in 

the United States pursuant to the conspiracy.

Sumitomo 

45. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. is a Japanese 

corporation. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. – directly or 

through its subsidiaries, which it wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, 

marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased throughout the 

United States, including in this District, during the Class Period. 

46. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd. is a Japanese 

corporation. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd. – directly or through 

its subsidiaries, which it wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, marketed or 

sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, 

including in this District, during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 12 of 42 Pg ID 12
13

47. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc. is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in Bowling Green, Kentucky. It is a 

joint venture between Co-conspirators Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. and 

Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, 

Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased 

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

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

and direction of Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. and Sumitomo Wiring Systems, 

Ltd.

48. Co-conspirator K&S Wiring Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in La Vergne, Tennessee. It is a subsidiary of 

and wholly-owned or controlled by its parent, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. 

Co-conspirator K&S Wiring Systems, Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire 

Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the 

United States were under the control and direction of Sumitomo Electric Industries, 

Ltd.

49. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc. is a Michigan 

corporation with its principal place of business in Novi, Michigan. It is a joint 

venture between Co-conspirators Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. and Sumitomo 

Wiring Systems, Ltd. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc. 

manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 13 of 42 Pg ID 13
14

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

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

and direction of Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. and Sumitomo Wiring Systems, 

Ltd. 

50. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc. is a Kentucky 

corporation with its principal place of business in Edmonton, Kentucky. Sumitomo 

Electric Wintec America, Inc. is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Coconspirator Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. Co-conspirator Sumitomo Electric 

Wintec America, Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that 

were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the United States were 

under the control and direction of Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

51. Co-conspirators Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., Sumitomo Wiring 

Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., K&S Wiring Systems, Inc., 

Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc., and Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, 

Inc. shall collectively be referred to herein as the “Sumitomo Co-Conspirators” or

“Sumitomo.”

Yazaki 

52. Co-conspirator Yazaki Corporation is a Japanese corporation. Coconspirator Yazaki Corporation – directly or through its subsidiaries, which it 

wholly-owned or controlled – manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 14 of 42 Pg ID 14
15

Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period. 

53. Co-conspirator Yazaki North America, Inc. is an Illinois corporation 

with its principal place of business in Canton Township, Michigan. It is a 

subsidiary of and wholly-owned or controlled by its parent, Yazaki Corporation. Coconspirator Yazaki North America Inc. manufactured, marketed or sold Wire 

Harness Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. During the Class Period, its activities in the 

United States were under the control and direction of Yazaki Corporation.

54. Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North America, Inc. shall collectively 

be referred to herein as the “Yazaki Co-Conspirators” or “Yazaki.” 

Tokai Rika 

55. Co-conspirator Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation. Coconspirator Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. manufactured, marked or sold Wire Harness 

Products that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period. 

56. Co-conspirator TRAM, Inc. (“TRAM”) is a Michigan corporation with 

its principal place of business in Plymouth, Michigan. TRAM is a wholly-owned and 

controlled subsidiary of Co-conspirator Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Co-conspirator TRAM 

manufactured, marketed or sold Wire Harness Products that were purchased 

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

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 15 of 42 Pg ID 15
16

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

and direction of Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

57. Co-conspirators Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. and TRAM, Inc. are collectively 

referred to herein as the “Tokai Rika Co-Conspirators” or “Tokai Rika.” 

DEFENDANTS’ CO-CONSPIRATORS AND AGENTS 

58. Various persons or firms not named as defendants herein have 

participated as co-conspirators in the violations alleged herein and have performed 

acts and made statements in furtherance thereof. The Defendants are jointly and 

severally liable for the acts of their co-conspirators whether named or not named as 

defendants in this Complaint. 

59. Each Defendant acted as the agent or joint venturer of or for other 

Defendants with respect to the acts, violations and common course of conduct 

alleged by Plaintiffs. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

60. Plaintiffs bring this action both on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated (the “Class”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 

23(b)(2) and (b)(3). The Class is defined as follows: 

All individuals who and entities that purchased Wire Harness 

Products in the United States directly from one or more 

Defendants or co-conspirators from January 1, 2000 through the 

present. 

61. Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of Class members, such 

information being in the exclusive control of Defendants and their co-conspirators. 

Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, however, Plaintiffs believe 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 16 of 42 Pg ID 16
17

that the Class is so numerous and geographically dispersed throughout the United 

States that joinder of all Class members is impracticable. 

62. There are questions of law or fact common to the class: 

a. Whether Defendants engaged in a contract, combination, or 

conspiracy to rig bids for, or to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize 

prices of Wire Harness Products sold in the United States; 

b. Whether Defendants agreed to allocate the supply of Wire 

Harness Products sold to certain direct purchasers in the United 

States on a model-by-model basis; 

c. Whether Defendants’ conduct caused Wire Harness Products to 

be sold in the United States at artificially high prices; 

d. Whether Plaintiffs and other members of the Class were injured 

by Defendants’ conduct, and, if so, the appropriate class-wide 

measure of damages for Class members; and 

e. Whether Plaintiffs and other members of the Class are entitled 

to injunctive relief and, if so, the nature and extent of such 

relief. 

63. These questions of law and fact are common to the Class and 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. 

64. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class because 

Plaintiffs directly purchased Wire Harness Products from one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, all Class members were damaged by the same 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 17 of 42 Pg ID 17
18

conspiracy alleged herein, and the relief sought by Plaintiffs is common to the 

Class. 

65. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class 

in that Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products and have no 

conflict with any other members of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have retained 

competent counsel experienced in antitrust, class action, and other complex 

litigation. 

66. Defendants and their co-conspirators have acted on grounds generally 

applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with 

respect to the Class as a whole. 

67. A class action is superior to the alternatives, if any, for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy. Prosecution of this matter as a class 

action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation and there are no inherent 

barriers to managing the case as a class action. 

68. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members 

would create the risk of inconsistent or varying outcomes. 

69. The Class is also readily definable and is one for which records likely 

exist in the files of Defendants and their co-conspirators. 

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 

70. Wire harnesses are systems of electrical and electronic cables, wires 

and connectors used to transmit informational signals or operating currents to 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 18 of 42 Pg ID 18
19

electronic control units, wiring, circuit boards, and other components in motor 

vehicles. 

71. Wire harness assemblies consist of raw, coiled wire, which is cut to 

length and terminated. Individual circuits are assembled together on a jig or table, 

inserted into connectors and wrapped or taped to form wire harness assemblies. 

72. Wire harnesses have color coded wires that are designed to support 

specific electrical and electronic motor vehicle features. Most, if not all, electrical 

and electronic devices in a vehicle rely on a wire harness to provide electric current 

and data transmission for operation. 

73. Motor vehicles contain masses of wires that can amount to several 

kilometers in length. A motor vehicle’s wiring system is organized into multiple 

wire harnesses. Wire harnesses provide organized connection points for multiple 

wiring configurations. The harness feature binds wires and cables into a bundle, 

which provides protection against deterioration or damage from vibration, 

abrasions, and moisture. 

74. Wire Harness Products are installed by manufacturers in new vehicles 

as part of the manufacturing process. Also, Wire Harness Products are installed in 

vehicles to replace worn out, defective or damaged parts. 

75. Automotive electrical wiring is the wiring that runs throughout the 

vehicle. 

76. High voltage wiring is integral to vehicles equipped with hybrid, fuelcell or electric-powered powertrains.

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 19 of 42 Pg ID 19
20

77. Lead wire assemblies connect a wire carrying electrical current from 

the power source to an electrode holder or a group clamp. 

78. Cable bonds are the electrical connection between the armor or sheath 

of one cable and that of an adjacent cable or across a wire in the armor. 

79. Automotive wiring connectors connect various types of wires in a motor 

vehicle. 

80. Automotive wiring terminals are the ends of a wire that provide a 

point of connection to external circuits. 

81. Electronic control units (“ECUs”) are embedded modules or systems 

that control one or more of the electrical systems or subsystems in a motor vehicle. 

Motor vehicles are equipped with a large number of ECUs that operate various 

motor vehicle functions and exchange large volumes of data with one another. 

82. Fuse boxes are modules that hold the fuses for the various electrical 

circuits, all of which are routed through the fuse box. The primary purpose of an 

electrical fuse is to help protect components on a circuit from damage in the event of 

a short circuit or a current spike or overload. 

83. Relay boxes are modules that hold the electrical switches that transmit 

impulses from one component to another, and can be used to connect or break the 

flow of the current in a circuit. Once a relay is activated it connects an electrical or 

other data supply to a particular component or accessory. 

84. Junction blocks are used as electrical connection points for the 

distribution of power or distribution of a ground. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 20 of 42 Pg ID 20
21

85. Power distributors serve to distribute power at varying levels to 

various electrical components. 

86. Speed sensor wire assemblies are installed in automobiles with an 

Antilock Brake System (“ABS”). The speed sensor wire assemblies connect a sensor 

on each tire to the ABS and carry electrical signals from the sensors to the ABS to 

instruct it when to engage. 

Requests For Quotation 

87. Motor vehicle Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) require 

multiple sources for motor vehicle parts. As part of their supply chain and 

procurement process, OEMs issue Requests for Quotation (“RFQs”) to parts 

suppliers on a model-by-model basis for model specific Wire Harness Products. 

88. RFQs are a standard business practice that allow parts suppliers to 

submit price quotations or bids on specific products or services. 

89. Foreign OEMs participate in RFQs to procure parts for U.S.-

manufactured vehicles both abroad and in the United States. 

90. Generally, OEMs issue Wire Harness Products RFQs to begin the 

bidding process approximately three years prior to production of a motor vehicle. 

91. OEMs’ RFQs typically include specifications and other relevant 

information for each motor vehicle product. In response to RFQs, parts suppliers 

submit price quotations, or bids, to OEMs to be considered for an award. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 21 of 42 Pg ID 21
22

92. After receiving responses to RFQs from each respective bidder, OEMs 

then award the business to the selected parts suppliers generally for the life of the 

vehicle model and further confirmed with annual purchase orders. 

93. Suppliers to OEMs have been required to directly purchase Wire 

Harness Products from Defendants at prices established by the OEMs and 

Defendants in the bidding process. 

The Wire Harness Products Industry 

94. It was important to the success of the cartel alleged herein that its 

members control and manipulate the prices paid by OEMs in order to control the 

prices paid by all other direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products. 

95. The Wire Harness Products industry is heavily concentrated. Wire 

Harness Products manufacturers are all capable of producing Wire Harness 

Products for use in any motor vehicle. 

96. During the Class Period the top four automotive Wire Harness 

Products manufacturers controlled 76.95% of the global market, and the top seven, 

the majority of which are Defendants’ co-conspirators, controlled 87.95% of the 

global market. See Figure 1. 

Market Shares of World's Major Manufacturers of Automotive Wiring Harness, 

2009 

 

Yazaki 29.81% 

Sumitomo 24.38% 

Delphi 16.71% 

Leoni 6.05% 

Lear 4.70% 

Furukawa 3.61% 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 22 of 42 Pg ID 22
23

Fujikura 2.69% 

Figure 1. 

97. According to Research in China, an international market research and 

market data firm, the global automotive wiring harness market reached U.S. $25.3 

billion in 2009, and grew by 6.6% to $26.9 billion in 2010. By 2013, the global 

automotive wiring harness market is projected to increase to almost U.S. $33 

billion. See Figure 2. 

Global Automotive Wiring Harness Market Scale, 2007-

2013

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Market Scale 

(US$ million) 

29,302 24,980 25,317 26,982 29,380 30,010 32,980

Growth Rate 16.9% -14.7% 1.3% 6.6% 9.3% 9.0% 3% 

Figure 2. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 23 of 42 Pg ID 23
24

98. There are high barriers to entry in the Wire Harness Products market 

due to high capital investment in plant and machinery and technical expertise. It is 

critically important for parts suppliers to maintain minimum viable scale in order 

to efficiently produce parts within the price and quantity parameters established by 

the OEMs. As such, loss of one’s position as a supplier of choice could have severe 

consequences to the business models of Defendants and their co-conspirators. 

99. In a competitive market, economies of scale and decreasing costs would 

lead to lower prices because manufacturers typically will reduce pricing rather than 

lose market share. In a market subject to a conspiracy to fix prices, however, 

competitors do not have the same incentive to lower prices despite steady or 

decreasing input costs because, based on a conspiratorial agreement, there is a 

smaller risk of losing sales to lower-priced competitors. 

100. During the Class Period, the prices of Wire Harness Products 

increased, while the primary manufacturing input costs remained steady. In fact, 

Leoni and Co-Conspirators Yazaki, Sumitomo, Furukawa, Lear and Fujikura have 

extensive experience in wiring production and are able to control associated input 

costs. 

Opportunities To Conspire 

101. Defendants and their co-conspirators attended industry events that 

provided the opportunity to meet, disguise their improper discussions, and perform 

acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. For example, Defendants and their co2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 24 of 42 Pg ID 24
25

conspirators have regularly attended the annual North American International 

Auto Show (“NAIAS”) in Detroit, Michigan. 

102. Defendants and their co-conspirators were also provided with the 

opportunity to meet, disguise their improper discussions and perform acts in 

furtherance of the conspiracy through joint ventures. For example, LEONI Group, 

though its holding company, Leoni AG, maintains a joint venture with coconspirator Furukawa in France called Leoni Furukawa Wiring Systems, SAS. 

The Conspiracy 

103. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators formed 

an international cartel to suppress and eliminate competition for Wire Harness 

Products by agreeing to rig bids for, and to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the 

prices of, Wire Harness Products. 

104. Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in meetings, 

conversations, and communications in the United States and abroad to discuss bids 

and price quotations for Wire Harness Products to be submitted to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States. 

105. Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed during those meetings, 

conversations, and communications to allocate the supply of Wire Harness Products 

sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States on a model-by-model basis. 

106. Defendants and their co-conspirators also agreed during meetings, 

conversations, and communications to coordinate price adjustments requested by 

automobile manufacturers in the United States. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 25 of 42 Pg ID 25
26

107. Defendants and their co-conspirators submitted bids, price quotations, 

and price adjustments to automobile manufacturers in the United States in 

accordance with their conspiratorial agreements. 

108. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ pricing actions regarding their 

sales of Wire Harness Products to automobile manufacturers had an impact on 

prices for Wire Harness Products for all direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products 

throughout the United States. 

109. Defendants and their co-conspirators held meetings and conversations 

in the United States to monitor and police the agreed-upon bid-rigging and pricefixing conspiracy. 

110. Defendants and their co-conspirators undertook measures to maintain 

the secretive nature of their unlawful conduct, including but not limited to, using 

code names and meeting at private residences or remote locations. 

Government Investigations 

111. Various U.S. and international governmental authorities, including 

the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) via its Antitrust Division, are currently 

investigating anticompetitive conduct in connection with the Wire Harness 

Products industry. 

112. On February 23, 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (“FBI”) 

Detroit division and the DOJ raided the U.S. offices of Denso, Yazaki, and TRAM. 

DOJ spokeswoman Gina Talamona said that “[t]he antitrust division is 

investigating the possibility of anticompetitive cartel conduct. . . . We are 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 26 of 42 Pg ID 26
27

coordinating with the European Commission and other foreign competition 

authorities.” 

113. On February 24, 2010, officials from the Competition Directorate of the 

EC raided the offices of Wire Harness Products manufacturers, including German 

and French offices of the LEONI Group, and a February 25, 2010 EC press release 

disclosed that the “Commission confirms investigation into suspected cartel in the 

sector of automotive electrical and electronic components suppliers. . . . The 

Commission has reason to believe that the companies concerned may have violated 

EU antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices.” Reports 

indicated that the EC’s investigation included Leoni, Lear Automotive France, 

Yazaki and others. 

114. Also on February 24, 2010, it was reported that the Japanese Fair 

Trade Commission (“JFTC”) raided three Japanese wire harness manufacturers 

suspected of participating in a price-fixing cartel: Yazaki Corporation, Sumitomo 

Electric Industries, Ltd., and Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. The three manufacturers 

have a combined 90% share of the Japanese wire harness market. 

115. On June 30, 2011, Fujikura Ltd. announced that it received an 

advance notice of disciplinary action against the company from the JFTC for 

violating antitrust laws regarding the trading of wiring harnesses. Fujikura Ltd. 

was ordered to pay 1.2 billion yen (U.S. $14.8 million). 

116. On July 20, 2011, the JFTC raided seven Japanese auto parts makers, 

including Denso Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Asmo. The Japan 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 27 of 42 Pg ID 27
28

Times reported that the JFTC “suspects the parts manufacturers had meetings 

from 2002 or earlier to set parts prices and decided which companies would win 

contracts before bidding for orders from automakers.” 

117. On September 29, 2011, the DOJ charged Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. 

and three of its executives with participating in a “combination and conspiracy to 

suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to 

rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of automotive wire 

harnesses and related products” in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

118. Also on September 29, 2011, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and its three 

executives agreed to plead guilty for their involvement in a criminal price-fixing and 

bid-rigging conspiracy in connection with the sale of Wire Harness Products. 

Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. agreed to pay a $200 million fine while three of its 

executives agreed to serve prison time in the United States ranging from a year and 

a day to eighteen months.

119. The DOJ described these as the “first charges as a result of its ongoing 

international cartel investigation of price fixing and bid rigging in the auto parts 

industry.” 

120. In a September 29, 2011 DOJ press release, Sharis A. Pozen, who was 

the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, stated that 

“[t]his cartel harmed an important industry in our nation’s economy, and the 

Antitrust Division with the Federal Bureau of Investigation will continue to work 

together to ensure that these kinds of conspiracies are stopped.” 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 28 of 42 Pg ID 28
29

121. FBI Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena also said that “[w]hen 

companies partner to control and price fix bids or contracts, it undermines the 

foundation of the United States’ economic system.” “The FBI is committed to 

aggressively pursuing any company involved in antitrust crimes.” 

122. According to the DOJ, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and its coconspirators manufactured automotive Wire Harness Products (a) in the United 

States for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States, (b) in 

Japan for export to the United States and installation in vehicles manufactured and 

sold in the United States, and (c) in Japan for installation in vehicles manufactured 

in Japan for export to and sale in the United States.

123. The DOJ alleges that Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and its coconspirators: (a) had meetings and communications in the United States and Japan 

to discuss bids and price quotations to be submitted to automobile manufacturers in 

the United States, (b) agreed on bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States, (c) agreed to allocate the supply of 

automotive wire harnesses and related products sold in the United States on a 

model-by-model basis, (d) agreed to coordinate price adjustments requested by 

automobile manufacturers in the United States, (e) submitted bids, price 

quotations, and price adjustments to automobile manufacturers in the United 

States in accordance with the agreements reached, (f) sold Wire Harness Products 

to automobile manufacturers in the United States at collusive and noncompetitive 

prices, and (g) participated in meetings and communications to monitor the 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 29 of 42 Pg ID 29
30

conspiracy and conceal their unlawful conduct, including but not limited to using 

code names and meeting at private residences or remote locations. 

124. On October 24, 2011, Hirotsugu Nagata pleaded guilty to a conspiracy 

to restrain trade in the market for Wire Harness Products in violation of the 

Sherman Act before Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan. Nagata was employed at Furukawa America in Plymouth, 

Michigan as General Manager of Sales from January 2004 to November 2007, Chief 

Financial Officer from January 2004 until March 2009, and Marketing Manager for 

a related joint venture from January 2004 until June 2009. Nagata admitted in his 

guilty plea that during meetings and conversations with co-conspirators, 

“agreements were reached to allocate the supply of automotive wire harnesses and 

related products sold to automobile manufacturers on a model-by-model basis, rig 

bids quoted to automobile manufacturers for automotive wire harnesses and related 

products, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices” for Wire Harness Products 

sold in the United States.

125. On October 24, 2011, Junichi Funo pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to 

restrain trade in the market for Wire Harness Products in violation of the Sherman 

Act before Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan. Funo worked at Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. in Japan as a Honda Sales 

Division representative from April 2003 to August 2003, then as Assistant General 

Manager for Honda Sales at Furukawa America from August 2003 to March 2009, 

and also as Manager of the Honda Sales Division in Japan from March 2009 until at 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 30 of 42 Pg ID 30
31

least July 2009. Funo admitted in his guilty plea that during meetings and 

conversations with co-conspirators, “agreements were reached to allocate the supply 

of automotive wire harnesses and related products sold to automobile 

manufacturers on a model-by-model basis, rig bids quoted to automobile 

manufacturers for automotive wire harnesses and related products, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices” for Wire Harness Products sold in the United 

States. 

126. On November 10, 2011, Tetsuya Ukai pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to 

restrain trade in the market for Wire Harness Products in violation of the Sherman 

Act before Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan. Ukai worked at Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. in Japan as a Manager in 

the Honda Sales Division from April 2003 to July 2005, Unit Chief in the Honda 

Sales Division from July 2005 to April 2007, and then General Manager of the 

Honda Sales Division from April 2007 until at least July 2009. Ukai admitted in 

his guilty plea that during meetings and conversations with co-conspirators, 

“agreements were reached to allocate the supply of automotive wire harnesses and 

related products sold to automobile manufacturers on a model-by-model basis, rig 

bids quoted to automobile manufacturers for automotive wire harnesses and related 

products, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices” for Wire Harness Products 

sold in the United States. 

127. On November 14, 2011, Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. pleaded guilty for 

its involvement in a criminal price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy in connection 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 31 of 42 Pg ID 31
32

with the sale of Wire Harness Products. Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. admitted in its 

guilty plea that during the relevant period, “agreements were reached to allocate 

the supply of automotive wire harnesses and related products sold to automobile 

manufacturers on a model-by-model basis, rig bids quoted to automobile 

manufacturers for automotive wire harnesses and related products, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices” for Wire Harness Products sold in the United 

States. Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. agreed to pay a $200 million fine. 

128. On January 19, 2012, the JFTC issued cease and desist orders to 

Yazaki Corporation and Fujikura Ltd. The JFTC also fined Yazaki Corporation, 

Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. and Fujikura Ltd. The JFTC’s cease and desist 

orders and fines against these co-conspirators were based on their involvement in a 

price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy in connection with the sale of Wire Harness 

Products in violation of Article 3 of the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. According to a 

JFTC press release, Yazaki Corporation, Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd., 

Fujikura Ltd., and Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. “substantially restrained 

competition . . . [by] appointing the designated successful bidder and managing to 

have the designated successful bidder win the bidding.” The JFTC fined Yazaki 

Corporation approximately $125.8 million, Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd. $27.5 

million, and Fujikura Ltd. $14.4 million. Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. admitted to 

its participation in a price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy, but was not fined 

because it provided information to the JFTC that led to the investigation. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 32 of 42 Pg ID 32
33

129. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Yazaki Corporation 

had agreed to pay a $470 million fine and to plead guilty to a three-count criminal 

information charging Yazaki Corporation with, among other things, participating in 

a combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate 

competition by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices 

of, Wire Harnesses Products sold to certain automobile manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until at 

least February 2010 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On March 1, 

2012, Yazaki Corporation pleaded guilty to this charge.

130. In addition to Yazaki Corporation, four Yazaki executives, Tsuneaki 

Hanamura, Ryoji Kuwai, Shigeru Ogawa, and Hisamitsu Takada, agreed to plead 

guilty to antitrust violations arising from their participation in a conspiracy to 

suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, 

and maintain the prices of Wire Harness Products sold to certain automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. The four executives of Yazaki 

Corporation will serve prison time ranging from 15 months to two years. The twoyear sentences would be the longest term of imprisonment imposed on a foreign 

national voluntarily submitting to U.S. jurisdiction for a Sherman Act violation.

131. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ also announced that Denso Corporation 

agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of $78 million in criminal fines to a two-count 

criminal information charging Denso Corporation with, among other things, 

participating in a combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 33 of 42 Pg ID 33
34

and eliminate competition by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of certain ECUs sold to an automobile manufacturer in the 

United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 and continuing 

until at least February 2010 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. ECUs are 

Wire Harness Products as alleged in this Complaint and are “essential to the 

wiring, circuit boards, gauges and fuel tanks of automobiles.” On March 5, 2012, 

Denso Corporation pleaded guilty to this charge. 

132. On April 3, 2012, the DOJ announced that G.S. Electech, Inc. agreed to 

plead guilty and pay a $2.75 million criminal fine to a one-count criminal 

information charging G.S. Electech, Inc. with participating in a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry 

by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix stabilize, and maintain the prices of speed 

sensor wire assemblies sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States 

and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2003 and continuing until at least 

February 2010 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Speed sensor wire 

assemblies are Wire Harness Products as alleged in this Complaint. In pleading 

guilty to this charge on May 16, 2012, G.S. Electech, Inc. and its subsidiaries agreed 

to cooperate with the DOJ by producing “documents [and] information...in the 

possession, custody or control of [G.S. Electech, Inc.] or its subsidiaries” and by 

providing “current and former directors, officers, and employees of [G.S. Electech, 

Inc.] or its subsidiaries...for interviews and the provision of testimony in grand jury, 

trial, and other judicial proceedings.” 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 34 of 42 Pg ID 34
35

133. On April 23, 2012, the DOJ announced that Fujikura Ltd. had agreed 

to plead guilty to a one-count criminal information charging it with participating in 

a combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate 

competition by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices 

of Wire Harnesses Products sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United 

States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2006 and continuing until at 

least February 2010 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Fujikura Ltd. also 

agreed to pay a $20 million fine for its role in the conspiracy.

134. On July 10, 2013, the European Commission announced that it had 

fined Sumitomo, Yazaki, Furukawa, S-Y Systems Technologies (“SYS”)(of which 

Yazaki is a part) and Leoni for coordinating the prices and allocating the supplies of 

wire harnesses to Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Renault in Europe. Leoni AG paid a 

1,378,000 Euro fine for its subsidiary’s involvement in a conspiracy with Sumitomo 

and SYS with respect to Nissan and Renault. The Leoni fine was reduced because 

of its cooperation in the investigation. 

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 

135. Defendants and their co-conspirators affirmatively and wrongfully 

concealed their anti-competitive conduct from Plaintiffs and the Class from at least 

January 1, 2000 through at least February 2010, when the antitrust investigations 

of the Wire Harness Products manufacturers became public. During that time, 

Plaintiffs and the Class did not learn or discover the operative facts giving rise to 

their claims, despite due diligence. Thus, Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 35 of 42 Pg ID 35
36

fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations through at least February 

2010. 

136. Defendants and their co-conspirators represented publicly, both to 

customers and otherwise, that their pricing and bidding activities were unilateral. 

In making those false representations, Defendants and their co-conspirators misled 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class as to the true, collusive, and coordinated nature 

of their bid-rigging, customer allocation, and price-fixing activities. 

137. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ wrongful conduct was carried 

out in part through means and methods that were designed to avoid detection, and 

which, in fact, successfully precluded detection. 

138. In particular, Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in 

meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss the bids and price 

quotations to be submitted to customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

139. During these meetings, conversations, and communications, 

Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed upon bids and price quotations to be 

submitted to customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

140. Defendants and their co-conspirators likewise agreed to allocate the 

supply of Wire Harness Products sold to customers in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

141. Defendants and their co-conspirators also agreed to coordinate price 

adjustments requested by customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 36 of 42 Pg ID 36
37

142. In accordance with the agreements reached by Defendants and their 

co-conspirators, they submitted collusive bids, price quotations, and price 

adjustments to customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

143. As a result of such coordinated actions, and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, 

Defendants and their co-conspirators sold Wire Harness Products to purchasers in 

the United States at collusive and noncompetitive prices. 

144. To keep the sale of Wire Harness Products at collusive and 

noncompetitive prices a secret, Defendants and their co-conspirators employed 

certain measures, including but not limited to, using code names and meeting at 

private residences or remote locations. 

145. Moreover, Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ successful contract, 

combination, or conspiracy was by its nature inherently self-concealing. 

146. Despite due diligence, Plaintiffs had no knowledge of Defendants’ and 

their co-conspirators’ unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy. 

147. In the course of purchasing Wire Harness Products, Plaintiffs studied 

prices of the specific products involved. 

148. Plaintiffs received from one or more Defendants or their coconspirators various pricing information. Plaintiffs had no way to know that 

Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ prices were higher than they should have 

been due to the conspiracy alleged herein. 

149. Plaintiffs did not and could not have discovered Defendants’ and their 

co-conspirators’ unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy at any earlier date, 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 37 of 42 Pg ID 37
38

despite due diligence. Defendants and their co-conspirators undertook affirmative 

acts of concealment of their contract, combination, or conspiracy, including their 

attendance at secret meetings, making misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and the 

Class of the reasons for the prices charged, and engaging in secret conversations 

concerning the allocation of customers, bid-rigging, and price-fixing of Wire Harness 

Products. 

ANTITRUST INJURY 

150. Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conspiracy caused injury to 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class by suppressing price competition among Wire 

Harness Products manufacturers, thereby depriving purchasers of Wire Harness 

Products of the benefits of a competitive market and setting prices of Wire Harness 

Products at artificially high levels. 

151. As a direct result of Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conspiracy, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured in their business or property 

in that they paid more for Wire Harness Products than otherwise would have been 

the case in a competitive market. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Sherman Act Section 1 – Horizontal Price-Fixing Against All Defendants)

152. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the above allegations as if fully 

set forth herein.

153. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered 

into a continuing agreement, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade to 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 38 of 42 Pg ID 38
39

artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for Wire Harness Products sold in 

the United States, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.

154. The contract, combination or conspiracy resulted in an agreement, 

understanding or concerted action between and among the Defendants and their coconspirators in furtherance of which the Defendants and their co-conspirators fixed, 

raised, maintained, or stabilized prices for Wire Harness Products sold in the 

United States. Such contract, combination, or conspiracy constitutes a per se

violation of the federal antitrust laws.

155. Defendants and their co-conspirators succeeded in rigging bids, fixing, 

raising, maintaining and stabilizing the prices of Wire Harness Products sold in the 

United States during the Class Period.

156. For purposes of formulating and effectuating their conspiracy, 

Defendants and their co-conspirators did those things they conspired to do, 

including:

 a. Participating in meetings and conversations in the United 

States and elsewhere to discuss the bids and price quotations of 

Wire Harness Products to be submitted to direct purchasers in 

the United States; 

 b. Agreeing on bids and price quotations to be submitted to direct 

purchasers in the United States; 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 39 of 42 Pg ID 39
40

 c. Agreeing to manipulate prices and allocate supply of Wire 

Harness Products sold in the United States in a manner that 

deprived direct purchasers of free and open competition; 

 d. Agreeing to coordinate price adjustments in the United States; 

 e. Submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to 

direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products in accordance with 

the agreements reached; 

 f. Selling Wire Harness Products to direct purchasers in the 

United States at noncompetitive prices; and 

 g. Employing measures to conceal the true nature of their unlawful 

conduct from Plaintiffs and other members of the Class in 

furtherance of the conspiracy. 

157. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and their coconspirators’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have 

been injured in their businesses or property in that they have paid more for Wire 

Harness Products than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment on their behalf 

and on behalf of the Class herein, and respectfully request the following relief: 

A. That the Court determine that this action may proceed as a class 

action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with Plaintiffs as the 

designated Class representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel; 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 40 of 42 Pg ID 40
41

B. That the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in 

furtherance thereof by Defendants and their co-conspirators as alleged in this 

complaint, be adjudicated and decreed a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act; 

C. That Plaintiffs and members of the Class recover damages sustained 

by them, as provided by the federal antitrust laws, and that a joint and several 

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class be entered against the Defendants in 

an amount to be trebled in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §15(a); 

D. That Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, transferees, 

assignees and the respective officers, directors, partners, agents and employees 

thereof and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf be 

permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing and maintaining the 

combination, conspiracy or agreement alleged herein; 

E. That Plaintiffs and members of the Class recover their costs of this 

suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law; 

F. That Plaintiffs and members of the Class be awarded pre-judgment 

and post-judgment interest; and 

 G. That Plaintiffs and members of the Class receive such other or further 

relief as may be just and proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all 

issues so triable. 

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 41 of 42 Pg ID 41
42

Dated: September 30, 2014 /s/ David H. Fink__________ 

David H. Fink (P28235) 

Darryl Bressack (P67820) 

FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 

100 West Long Lake Road; Ste. 111 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 971-2500 

dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com 

dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com 

Direct Purchaser Interim Liaison 

Counsel 

Gregory P. Hansel 

Randall B. Weill 

Michael S. Smith 

PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU 

 & PACHIOS LLP 

One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 

Portland, ME 04112-9546 

Telephone: (207) 791-3000 

ghansel@preti.com 

rweill@preti.com 

msmith@preti.com 

Joseph C. Kohn 

William E. Hoese 

Douglas A. Abrahams 

KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 

One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Telephone: (215) 238-1700 

jkohn@kohnswift.com 

whoese@kohnswift.com 

dabrahams@kohnswift.com

Steven A. Kanner 

William H. London 

Michael E. Moskovitz 

Michael L. Silverman 

FREED KANNER LONDON 

 & MILLEN LLC 

2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 

Bannockburn, IL 60015 

Telephone: (224) 632-4500

skanner@fklmlaw.com 

blondon@fklmlaw.com 

mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com 

msilverman@fklmlaw.com 

Eugene A. Spector 

William G. Caldes 

Jonathan M. Jagher 

Jeffrey L. Spector 

SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF 

 & WILLIS, P.C. 

1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 496-0300 

espector@srkw-law.com 

bcaldes@srkw-law.com 

jjagher@srkw-law.com 

jspector@srkw-law.com 

Direct Purchaser Interim Lead Counsel

2:14-cv-13773-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/30/14 Pg 42 of 42 Pg ID 42