1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

Plaintiff VITEC, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers 

of Fuel Injection Systems, brings this class action against Defendants under the federal antitrust 

laws for treble damages and alleges as follows. 

1. Beginning at least as early as January 2000, the Defendants—United States and 

global manufacturers and suppliers of fuel injection systems—violated the antitrust laws by 

entering into a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Fuel 

Injection Systems sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. As a result 

of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and other class members paid artificially inflated prices 

for Fuel Injection Systems and have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. 

2. A criminal investigation of price fixing in the motor vehicle parts industry by the 

U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division has resulted in Defendants Hitachi Automotive 

Systems, Ltd., Aisan Industry Co, Ltd., Mitsuba Corporation, and Mitsubishi Corporation being 

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

2:12-md-02311 

Honorable Marianne O. Battani 

2:13-cv-02201-MOB-MKM 

IN RE FUEL INJECTION SYSTEMS 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

DIRECT PURCHASER ACTION 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1730 Filed 07/18/19 Page 1 of 30
2 

criminally charged and pleading guilty to antitrust violations with respect to Fuel Injection 

Systems. 

3. Plaintiff brings this action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (the 

“Sherman Act”) and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15 (the “Clayton Act”), and asserts 

the following allegations on information and belief, except as to those paragraphs that pertain to 

Plaintiff, which are based upon personal knowledge. 

DEFINITIONS 

4. A “Fuel Injection System” admits fuel or a fuel/air mixture into engine cylinders, 

and may include fuel injectors, high pressure pumps, rail assemblies, feed lines, electronic throttle 

bodies, airflow meters, engine control units, fuel pumps, fuel pump modules, manifold absolute 

pressure sensors (“MAP Sensors”), pressure regulators, pulsation dampers, electronic throttle 

motors, purge control valves and other components sold as a unitary system, as part of a broader 

system, such as an engine management system, or as separate components. 

5. The global market for Fuel Injection Systems has been estimated to be on the order 

of $47 billion. 

6. The “Class Period” is from at least as early as January 2000 to the present. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. Plaintiff brings this action to recover treble damages, the costs of suit, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees resulting from Defendants’ violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1. 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, and 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(d) and 1337. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1731 Filed 07/18/19 Page 2 of 30
3 

9. 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 

Plaintiff’s 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 in, are licensed to do business in, are doing business in, had agents in, are found in, or 

transact business in this District. 

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

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

11. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because, inter 

alia, each Defendant: (a) transacted business throughout the United States, including in this 

District, (b) manufactured, sold, shipped, and delivered substantial quantities of Fuel Injection 

Systems throughout the United States, including in this District, (c) had substantial contacts with 

the United States, including in this District, and (d) was engaged in an illegal scheme and pricefixing conspiracy that was directed at, and had the intended effect of causing injury to, persons 

and entities residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including in 

this District. 

THE PARTIES 

The Plaintiff 

12. Plaintiff VITEC, L.L.C., is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Michigan. Plaintiff purchased Fuel Injection Systems directly from one or 

more of the Defendants during the Class Period. 

The Keihin Defendants 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1732 Filed 07/18/19 Page 3 of 30
4 

13. Defendant Keihin Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of 

business in Tokyo, Japan. 

14. Defendant Keihin North America, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its principal 

place of business in Anderson, Indiana. It is owned and controlled by Keihin Corporation.

The Maruyasu Defendant 

15. Defendant Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its 

principal place of business in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. During the Class Period, 

Defendant Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly 

owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Fuel Injection Systems that were 

sold and purchased throughout the United States, including in this District. 

The Mikuni Defendants 

16. Defendant Mikuni Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of 

business in Tokyo, Japan. 

17. Defendant Mikuni American Corporation is a California corporation with its 

principal place of business in Northridge, California. It is owned and controlled by Mikuni 

Corporation. 

The Aisan Defendants 

18. Defendant Aisan Industry Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal 

place of business in Obu, Japan. 

19. Defendant Franklin Precision Industry, Inc., is a Kentucky corporation with its 

principal place of business in Franklin, Kentucky. It is owned and controlled by Aisan Industry 

Co., Ltd. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1733 Filed 07/18/19 Page 4 of 30
5 

20. Defendant Aisan Corporation of America is an Illinois corporation with its principal 

place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. It is owned and controlled by Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. 

21. Defendant Hyundam Industrial Co., Ltd., is a Korean corporation with its principal 

place of business in Asan-si, South Korea. It is owned and controlled by Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. 

The Hitachi Defendants 

22. Defendant Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its 

principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. 

23. Defendant Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in Harrodsburg, Kentucky. It is owned and controlled by 

Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. 

The Denso Defendants 

24. Defendant Denso Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of 

business in Kariya, Japan. 

25. Defendant Denso International America, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in Southfield, Michigan. It is owned and controlled by Denso 

Corporation. 

26. Defendant Denso International Korea Corporation is a Korean corporation with its 

principal place of business in Uiwang-si, South Korea. It is owned and controlled by Denso 

Corporation. 

The Mitsuba Defendants 

27. Defendant Mitsuba Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place 

of business in Gunma, Japan. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1734 Filed 07/18/19 Page 5 of 30
6 

28. Defendant American Mitsuba Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its 

principal place of business in Novi, Michigan. It is owned and controlled by Mitsuba Corporation. 

The Mitsubishi Defendants 

29. Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its 

principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. 

30. Defendant Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with 

its principal place of business in Cypress, California. It is owned and controlled by Mitsubishi 

Electric Corporation. 

31. Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc., is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in Mason, Ohio. It is owned and controlled by 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. 

The Bosch Defendants 

32. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is a privately held German company with its 

principal place of business in Stuttgart, Germany. 

33. Defendant Robert Bosch LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Farmington Hills, Michigan. It is owned and controlled by Robert 

Bosch GmbH. 

DEFENDANTS’ CO-CONSPIRATORS AND AGENTS

34. The acts alleged in this Complaint to have been done by Defendants Franklin 

Precision Industry, Inc., Aisan Corporation of America, Hyundam Industrial Co., Ltd., Hitachi 

Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Denso International America, Inc., Denso International 

Korea Corporation, Keihin North America, Inc., Mikuni American Corporation, American 

Mitsuba Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Automotive 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1735 Filed 07/18/19 Page 6 of 30
7 

America, Inc., Robert Bosch LLC, Keihin North America, Inc., and Mikuni American Corporation 

were authorized, ordered and condoned by their parent companies. 

35. The acts alleged to have been done by the Defendants were authorized, ordered and 

performed by their officers, directors, agents, employees or representatives while engaged in the 

management, direction, control or transaction of Defendants’ business affairs. 

36. Other persons or firms not named as defendants have participated as coconspirators 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 coconspirators whether or not the conspirators are named as defendants in this Complaint. 

37. Each Defendant acted as the agents of or for the other Defendants with respect to 

the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged in this Complaint. 

INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE 

38. The activities of Defendants and their co-conspirators, as described in this 

Complaint, were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate commerce. 

39. During the Class Period, Defendants manufactured, sold and shipped substantial 

quantities of Fuel Injection Systems in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate and 

foreign commerce. 

FUEL INJECTION SYSTEMS 

40. Fuel Injection Systems manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendants during the 

Class Period are not functionally distinguishable from each other in any material respect. 

41. Fuel Injection Systems are installed by motor vehicle original equipment 

manufacturers (“OEMs”) in new motor vehicles as part of the manufacturing process. They are 

also installed in motor vehicles to replace worn out, defective, or damaged Fuel Injection Systems. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1736 Filed 07/18/19 Page 7 of 30
8 

42. OEMs include the Big Three in Detroit (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) and 

non-domestic companies that also operate manufacturing plants in the U.S. For example, during 

the Class Period, Nissan manufactured motor vehicles in Mississippi and Tennessee, Toyota in 

Kentucky, BMW in South Carolina, Honda in Ohio and Alabama, Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz 

in Alabama, and Kia in Georgia. In addition to OEMs, suppliers to OEMs, such as Plaintiff, 

purchased Fuel Injection Systems directly from Defendants. 

43. When purchasing Fuel Injection Systems, OEMs issue Requests for Quotation 

(“RFQs”) to motor vehicle parts suppliers. For automotive OEMs, the bidding process begins 

approximately three years prior to the start of production of a new model platform. In response, 

motor vehicle parts suppliers submit quotations or bids, and the OEM usually awards the business 

to the selected motor vehicle part supplier for the anticipated production cycle of the platform, 

usually four to six years. Japanese OEMs procure parts for U.S.-manufactured motor vehicles 

both in Japan and in the United States. 

44. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Fuel Injection Systems to OEMs for 

installation in motor vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere. The 

Defendants and their co-conspirators manufactured Fuel Injection Systems (a) in the United States 

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

elsewhere for export to the United States and installation in motor vehicles manufactured and sold 

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

export to and sale in the United States. 

45. During the Class Period, Defendants sold Fuel Injection Systems directly to OEMs, 

suppliers to OEMs, distributors, and other purchasers. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1737 Filed 07/18/19 Page 8 of 30
9 

46. During the Class Period, Defendants, who in a competitive market would be 

horizontal competitors, engaged in a conspiracy to rig bids for and to raise, fix, maintain, or 

stabilize prices of Fuel Injection Systems. As a result of their unlawful conduct, Defendants did 

not compete, but instead conducted their business insulated from competition. 

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MARKET 

FOR FUEL INJECTION SYSTEMS ARE CONDUCIVE TO COLLUSION 

47. Several important economic characteristics of the market for Fuel Injection 

Systems render it plausible that there was collusion among Fuel Injection Systems suppliers. 

High Barriers to Entry 

48. A collusive arrangement that raises product prices above competitive levels would, 

under normal circumstances, attract new entrants seeking to benefit from the supra-competitive 

pricing. New entrants would, in turn, decrease the market power of the co-conspirators and 

diminish their ability to successfully maintain supra-competitive pricing. Where, however, there 

are significant barriers to entry, new entrants are less likely. Therefore, high barriers to entry help 

facilitate a cartel. 

49. There are high barriers to entry in the market for Fuel Injection Systems. Entry 

requires a company to incur significant start-up capital expenditures. A new entrant into the 

business would have to incur millions of dollars in costs, including capital expenditures on plants 

and equipment, as well as transportation, electricity, infrastructure for distribution, and labor. A 

new entrant would also have to have assured relationships with significant customers in order to 

justify its substantial investments of capital. 

Price Inelasticity 

50. When a seller of goods or services can increase prices without suffering a 

substantial reduction in sales, pricing is considered inelastic. In order for a cartel to profit from 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1738 Filed 07/18/19 Page 9 of 30
10 

raising prices above competitive levels, pricing must be relatively inelastic. Otherwise, increased 

prices would result in declining sales, revenues, and profits. 

51. Fuel Injection Systems are required for vehicles that use them; there are no viable 

substitute products. Therefore, pricing for Fuel Injection Systems is highly inelastic. 

Opportunities for Collusion 

52. Defendants attended industry events that created opportunities to conspire. Such 

industry events have provided myriad opportunities to meet, conspire, and share information. 

DEFENDANTS’ ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY

53. During the Class Period, Defendants conspired to rig bids for, to allocate the supply 

of, and to raise, fix and maintain prices for Fuel Injection Systems sold in or into the United States. 

54. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in anticompetitive conduct in 

furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, as described below. 

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

communications in the United States, Germany and Japan to discuss bids and price quotations for 

Fuel Injection Systems sold in or into the United States. 

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

and communications to allocate among themselves the supply of Fuel Injection Systems sold in or 

into the United States. 

57. Defendants sold Fuel Injection Systems to customers in the United States and 

elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices. 

58. Defendants accepted payments for Fuel Injection Systems sold in the United States 

and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1739 Filed 07/18/19 Page 10 of 30
11 

59. Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed during meetings, conversations, and 

communications to coordinate price adjustments requested by motor vehicle manufacturers. 

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

adjustments to motor vehicle manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere in accordance with 

their conspiratorial agreements. 

61. Defendants and their co-conspirators held meetings and conversations to monitor 

and police their bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracy. 

62. Defendants and their co-conspirators affirmatively undertook measures to conceal 

their unlawful conduct. 

63. Defendants accomplished their conspiracy, in part, by rigging bids they made in 

response to RFQs. 

64. The RFQ process is designed to obtain independent bids from multiple suppliers. 

The OEM RFQ process generally works as follows: (1) the OEM issues the RFQ to multiple parts 

suppliers; (2) the suppliers submit bids; (3) depending on the OEM and product, the OEM and 

suppliers may revise the technical specifications and the pricing; (4) the suppliers submit revised 

bids; and (5) the OEM selects the winner. 

65. Generally, RFQ contracts are awarded to suppliers that submit the lowest bids and 

last for the life of a vehicle model (approximately five years). 

66. When OEMs purchase Fuel Injection Systems directly from the supplier to whom 

they awarded the contract, the OEMs purchase the Fuel Injection Systems at the winning price. 

67. That winning price is also used when OEM suppliers that were not part of the RFQ 

process purchase Fuel Injection Systems directly from the winning bidder for incorporation into 

products manufactured for and sold to OEMs. Those suppliers and other direct purchasers who 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1740 Filed 07/18/19 Page 11 of 30
12 

directly purchase Fuel Injection Systems from the winning bidder pay the winning bidder at least 

the winning price. The OEM price sets the floor for pricing of Fuel Injection Systems. 

68. Defendants’ conduct persisted for at least eleven years (2000-2011). Had 

governmental authorities in the United States and abroad not launched an antitrust investigation 

into anticompetitive conduct in the market for motor vehicle parts, it is likely that the conspiracy 

would have continued undetected. 

69. Defendants manipulated the RFQ process to accomplish their conspiracy. 

70. As part of their conspiracy, at times Defendants agreed to submit bids that would 

allow the supplier that had the existing Fuel Injection Systems business for a particular model to 

win the Fuel Injection Systems business for the successor model. 

71. Defendants coordinated their Fuel Injection Systems pricing. They submitted 

responses to RFQs that incorporated changes to pricing based on the conspiratorial agreements 

they made with each other. Defendants exchanged pricing information not just to ensure that the 

agreed-upon party would win the business, but also to ensure that the losing bidders would look 

competitive in order to have the opportunity to bid for future business. 

72. Defendants communicated, held meetings, and reached conspiratorial agreements 

in furtherance of their price-fixing conspiracy. Defendants’ activities included, but were not 

limited to, the following: 

a. Agreeing to unlawfully coordinate pricing for, and allocate sales of, Fuel 

Injection Systems. For example, in responding to RFQs, Defendants agreed that the 

incumbent supplier would be the preferred bidder, and to price their bids to effect this 

agreement. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1741 Filed 07/18/19 Page 12 of 30
13 

b. Colluding with regard to RFQs for Fuel Injection Systems business by 

agreeing on pricing and then communicating agreed-upon prices to Defendants’ 

subsidiaries in the U.S., where the prices were submitted collusively. 

c. Discussing and exchanging pricing information with regard to Fuel 

Injection Systems RFQs and reaching conspiratorial agreements with respect to RFQs by 

means of communications on multiple occasions to coordinate responses and exchanges 

and adjustments of Fuel Injection Systems pricing before submission to OEMs in the 

United States and elsewhere. 

d. Defendant Keihin met with Defendants Denso and Hitachi to discuss the 

submission of bids for fuel injection systems to Honda. They agreed to allocate the 

business based on geographic region and exchanged quotes for the purpose of submitting 

bids that would accomplish this agreement. 

e. Defendant Mikuni met with Defendant Denso to discuss the submission of 

bids to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation for the purpose of increasing prices for fuel injection 

systems and exchanged quotes for the purpose of accomplishing this agreement. 

f. Defendant Maruyasu met with Defendant Denso to discuss the submission 

of bids to Toyota for fuel injection systems. They agreed to share the business with Toyota 

and exchanged quotes for the purpose of submitting bids that would enable them to be low 

bidder for the fuel injection systems they had agreed to allocate between themselves. 

73. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew and intended that their actions regarding 

their sales of Fuel Injection Systems to motor vehicle manufacturers would have a direct impact 

on prices for Fuel Injection Systems sold to all direct purchasers in the United States. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1742 Filed 07/18/19 Page 13 of 30
14 

74. Defendants’ single price-fixing conspiracy involving Fuel Injection Systems 

impacted not only multiple bids submitted to OEMs, but also the prices paid by all other direct 

purchasers of Fuel Injection Systems. 

UNITED STATES CRIMINAL CHARGES 

75. On September 26, 2013, the DOJ charged Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., with 

participating in a “combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the 

automotive parts industry by agreeing to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, certain automotive products sold to automobile manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere,” in violation of the Sherman Act. The criminal information defined 

“automotive parts” to include Fuel Injection Systems. 

76. According to the criminal information, Hitachi and its co-conspirators: 

a. participated in meetings, conversations, and communications in the United 

States and elsewhere to discuss the bids and price quotations to be submitted to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

b. agreed, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, on bids 

and price quotations to be submitted to automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere; 

c. agreed, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, to 

allocate the supply of automotive parts (including Fuel Injection Systems) sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

d. agreed, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, to 

coordinate price adjustments requested by automobile manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere; 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1743 Filed 07/18/19 Page 14 of 30
15 

e. submitted certain bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere in accordance with the 

agreements reached; 

f. sold automotive parts (including Fuel Injection Systems) to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere in accordance with the agreements 

reached; 

g. accepted payment for automotive parts (including Fuel Injection Systems) 

sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and 

noncompetitive prices; 

h. engaged in meetings, conversations, and communications in the United 

States and elsewhere for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreedupon bid-rigging and price-fixing scheme; and 

i. employed measures to keep their conduct secret, including, but not limited 

to, using code names and meeting at remote locations. 

77. On November 6, 2013, a Plea Agreement executed by the DOJ and Hitachi 

Automotive Systems, Ltd., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan. In the Plea Agreement Hitachi agreed to pay a $195 million criminal fine and plead 

guilty to a one-count criminal information charging it with engaging in “a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry”—with 

“automotive parts” defined to include Fuel Injection Systems—“by agreeing to allocate the supply 

of, rig bids for, and fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, certain automotive products sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere,” in violation of the Sherman Act. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1744 Filed 07/18/19 Page 15 of 30
16 

78. In addition to the criminal fine, Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. has agreed that 

it and its subsidiaries will cooperate in the DOJ’s ongoing criminal investigation. 

79. The Plea Agreement states that “automotive parts [defined to include Fuel Injection 

Systems] that were subject of the conspiracy were sold to Nissan, Honda, GM, Ford, Toyota, and 

others, and certain of their subsidiaries, affiliates and suppliers in the U.S. and elsewhere, by the 

defendant’s affiliate, Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., which is located in the Eastern 

District of Michigan.” 

80. On September 18, 2014, the DOJ charged four Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., 

employees with criminal violations of the Sherman Act in relation to the same conduct that 

underpins the company’s Plea Agreement. 

81. Hitachi employees obstructed the DOJ’s investigation into the company’s criminal 

conduct. The Hitachi plea agreement states that when “certain employees of [Hitachi] became 

aware of a criminal antitrust investigation” in 2010, Hitachi employees “took steps to destroy 

evidence of [Hitachi’s] criminal activity . . . .” Then in 2011, when Hitachi employees learned 

that the company was being raided by law enforcement authorities, “certain employees of [Hitachi] 

took steps to destroy evidence” of the company’s criminal activity “to prevent its discovery by law 

enforcement authorities.” The plea agreement further states that “[c]ertain employees involved in 

the efforts to destroy evidence were senior managers of [Hitachi].” 

82. Defendant Denso Corporation, one of the world’s leading Fuel Injection Systems 

manufacturers, has pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal information and paid a total of $78 

million in criminal fines. Denso Corporation was charged with: (1) participating in a combination 

and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the motor vehicle parts industry by 

agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, electronic control units 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1745 Filed 07/18/19 Page 16 of 30
17 

sold to a motor vehicle manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere, starting at least as early 

as January 2000 and continuing until at least February 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act; and (2) participating in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate 

competition in the motor vehicle parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, heater control units sold to a motor vehicle manufacturer in the United 

States and elsewhere starting at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until at least February 

2010, also in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 

83. On January 31, 2012, Denso Corporation issued a news release stating that “to 

emphasize the seriousness of these matters, Denso chairman, president and certain board members 

and executive directors will voluntarily return 30 percent to 10 percent of their compensation for 

a three-month period starting in February 2012.” 

84. On August 20, 2014, the National Development and Reform Commission of China 

announced that it had decided to impose monetary sanctions on certain automotive suppliers, 

including Denso Corporation, for violation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law in connection with 

sales of “certain automotive components.” 

85. On August 21, 2014, Denso Corporation announced that it had been fined by the 

Ontario Superior Court of Justice for violation of the Canadian Competition Act in connection 

with sales in Canada of certain body electronic control units for motor vehicles. 

86. On March 26, 2015, the South Korea Fair Trade Commission fined Denso 

Corporation and its Korean subsidiary $1.23 million for rigging bids on exhaust gas temperature 

sensors. 

87. Defendant Aisan Industry Co, Ltd. has agreed to plead guilty to violating the 

Sherman Act and to pay a $6.86 million criminal fine for anti-competitive actions in the market 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1746 Filed 07/18/19 Page 17 of 30
18 

for automotive parts—including Fuel Injection System components electronic throttle bodies and 

fuel pump modules—sold in the United States between 2003 and 2010. 

88. Defendant Mitsuba Corporation has agreed to plead guilty to violating the Sherman 

Act and to pay a $135 million criminal fine for anti-competitive actions in the market for 

automotive parts—including Fuel Injection System components electronic throttle motors and fuel 

pumps—sold in the United States between 2000 and 2010. 

89. Former Mitsuba executives Hiroyuki Komiya and Hirofumi Nakayama have been 

charged by the DOJ with fixing the prices of automotive parts and persuading or attempting to 

persuade Mitsuba employees to destroy documents and data that may contain evidence of antitrust 

crimes in the United States. 

90. DOJ has also charged that Mitsuba Corporation obstructed justice: 

In or about February 2010, Executive A, acting on Defendant’s [Mitsuba’s] 

behalf, knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed, covered up, 

falsified and made false entries in records, documents and tangible objects 

with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and 

proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of a department and 

agency of the United States, to wit, an investigation by the FBI and the 

United States Department of Justice of possible violations of U.S. antitrust 

law, in relation to and contemplation of such matter and case, and 

furthermore did order and command other employees of the Defendant to 

do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. 

After becoming aware of the FBI search of Defendant’s co-conspirator’s 

U.S. offices, Executive A informed certain of his subordinates employed at 

the U.S. subsidiary of Defendant about the FBI search, and instructed such 

subordinates, as well as other employees of Defendant, to locate, conceal 

and destroy documents and electronic files that were likely to contain 

evidence of antitrust crimes in the United States and elsewhere. 

Executive A concealed and destroyed documents and electronic files in his 

possession, custody and control in the Eastern District of Michigan that 

were likely to contain evidence of antitrust crimes in the United States and 

elsewhere. Certain of Executive A’s subordinates and other employees of 

Defendant took acts in the Eastern District of Michigan and elsewhere to 

endeavor to conceal and destroy such documents and electronic files in the 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1747 Filed 07/18/19 Page 18 of 30
19 

possession, custody and control of Defendant, and did conceal and destroy 

such documents and electronic files. 

91. Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation has agreed to plead guilty to violating the 

Sherman Act and to pay a $190 million criminal fine for anti-competitive actions in the market for 

automotive parts—including Fuel Injection System components fuel injectors, fuel pumps, MAP 

sensors, purge control valves, and throttle bodies—sold in the United States between 2000 and 

2010. 

92. Mitsubishi executives Atsushi Ueda, Minoru Kurisaki, and Hideyuki Saito have 

been charged by the DOJ with conspiring to fix automotive part prices; Kurisaki and Saito have 

been charged with conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying documents; and Saito has been 

charged with persuading or attempting to persuade others to destroy documents and data that may 

contain evidence of antitrust crimes in the United States. 

93. Defendant Bosch agreed to plead guilty to violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act 

in the sale of automobile parts and to pay a criminal fine of $57.8 million. Under the terms of its 

plea agreement, Bosch admitted that within the Class Period it had “participated in a conspiracy 

with other persons and entities engaged in the manufacture and sale of spark plugs, oxygen sensors, 

and starter motors, as defined above, the primary purpose of which was to allocate the supply of, 

rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, spark plugs, oxygen sensors, and starter 

motors sold in the United States and elsewhere.” Bosch admitted that in furtherance of the 

conspiracy its employees had participated in meetings and conversations where agreements were 

reached (inter alia) “to allocate the supply of starter motors, rig bids for the sale of starter motors, 

and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, starter motors sold to Volkswagen AG and certain 

of its subsidiaries in the United States for use in certain Volkswagen vehicles assembled in the 

United States.” 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1748 Filed 07/18/19 Page 19 of 30
20 

94. On June 15, 2016, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury sitting in the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio returned an Indictment charging Defendants 

Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary Curtis-Maruyasu America, Inc. and four 

executives with conspiring to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids for automotive steel tubes 

sold in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as December 2003 until at least July 

9, 2011 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

95. On May 31, 2018, the DOJ announced that Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. pled 

guilty and was sentenced to pay a $12 million criminal fine for its role in a criminal conspiracy to 

fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers for automotive steel tubes sold to automobile 

manufacturers in Japan and incorporated into vehicles sold in the United States in violation of 

Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Concurrent with the Court’s imposition of the sentence against 

Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd., the DOJ moved to dismiss the indictment as to Curtis-Maruyasu 

America, Inc. and three of the four charged executives. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

96. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself, and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), as the representative of a Class defined as follows: 

All direct purchasers of motor vehicle Fuel Injection 

Systems in the United States from any of the Defendants (or 

their controlled subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint-ventures) 

between at least as early as January 2000 and the present. 

97. Members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed across the 

United States that joinder is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown 

to Plaintiff, it is believed to be in the hundreds. The identity of the members of the Class can be 

readily determined from information and records Defendants possess. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1749 Filed 07/18/19 Page 20 of 30
21 

98. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff 

and all members of the Class were damaged by the same wrongful conduct by Defendants, i.e., 

they have paid artificially inflated prices for Fuel Injection Systems as a result of Defendants’ 

anticompetitive and unlawful conduct. 

99. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class. 

Plaintiff’s interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Class. 

100. Plaintiff is represented by counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of 

antitrust class action litigation. 

101. Questions of law and fact common to members of the Class predominate over 

questions that may affect only individual Class members, because Defendants have acted on 

grounds generally applicable to the entire Class. Such generally applicable conduct is inherent in 

Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct. 

102. There are core questions of law and fact common to the Class, such as: 

a. Whether Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of, 

to allocate, or to rig bids for, Fuel Injection Systems; 

b. Who participated in the conspiracy and how long it lasted; 

c. Whether the conspiracy caused Fuel Injection Systems prices to be higher 

than they otherwise would have been; 

d. Whether Defendants’ conduct caused injury to the business or property of 

Plaintiff and members of the Class; 

e. Whether Defendants’ conduct violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; 

f. Whether Defendants undertook actions to conceal their unlawful 

conspiracy; and 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1750 Filed 07/18/19 Page 21 of 30
22 

g. How to measure the damages suffered by the Class. 

103. A class action is superior to the other methods available for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this litigation because individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. 

Individual litigation presents the potential for inconsistent judgments and would greatly increase 

the cost and duration of litigation for all parties and for the judicial system. A class action permits 

more efficient case management and offers the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of 

scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

ANTITRUST INJURY SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS 

104. Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct has had the following effects: 

a. price competition has been restrained, suppressed, or eliminated with 

respect to Fuel Injection Systems; 

b. the prices of Fuel Injection Systems have been raised, fixed, maintained, or 

stabilized at supra-competitive levels; and 

c. purchasers of Fuel Injection Systems have been deprived of free and open 

competition in the Fuel Injection Systems market. 

105. As a result of Defendants’ contract, combination, or conspiracy, Plaintiff and Class 

members paid higher prices for Fuel Injection Systems than they would have in the absence of the 

conspiracy, and Plaintiff and Class members have sustained injury to their business or property. 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIMELY

106. Plaintiff and the other Class members had no knowledge of the anticompetitive 

conduct alleged herein, or of facts sufficient to place them on notice of the claims set forth herein, 

until September 26, 2013, at the earliest. As a result, Plaintiff and other Class members did not 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1751 Filed 07/18/19 Page 22 of 30
23 

discover, and could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence 

of the conspiracy alleged herein before that date. 

107. No information about the Fuel Injection Systems conspiracy was in the public 

domain or otherwise available to Plaintiff or the Class prior to September 26, 2013, when the DOJ 

filed its criminal information against Hitachi. Prior to that time, there was insufficient information 

to suggest that any one of the Defendants was involved in a Fuel Injection Systems conspiracy. 

For these reasons, the statute of limitations as to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s claims did not begin to 

run until (at the earliest) September 26, 2013. 

108. Fraudulent concealment by Defendants also tolled the statute of limitations on the 

claims asserted by Plaintiff and the Class until at least September 26, 2013. Defendants 

affirmatively and wrongfully concealed anticompetitive conduct from Plaintiff and the Class from 

at least as early as January 2000 through at least September 26, 2013. During that time, Plaintiff 

and the Class did not learn or discover the operative facts giving rise to the instant Complaint. 

109. Before at least September 26, 2013, Plaintiff and members of the Class were 

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

supra-competitive prices for Fuel Injection Systems during the Class Period. No information, 

actual or constructive, was ever made available to Plaintiff or other members of the Class that 

would have suggested that they were being injured by Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

110. The affirmative acts by the Defendants alleged herein were wrongfully concealed 

and carried out in a manner that precluded detection. 

111. By its very nature, Defendants’ anti-competitive conspiracy was inherently selfconcealing. Because Fuel Injection Systems are not exempt from antitrust regulation, Plaintiff and 

the Class reasonably believed that the market for Fuel Injection Systems was competitive. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1752 Filed 07/18/19 Page 23 of 30
24 

112. Defendants represented publicly that their pricing and bidding activities were 

unilateral, rather than being based on anticompetitive agreements. In making those false 

representations, Defendants misled Plaintiff and the Class as to the true, collusive, and coordinated 

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

113. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was carried out in part through means and methods 

that were designed to prevent detection, and which for a long time succeeded in preventing 

detection. 

114. In particular, Defendants participated in meetings, conversations, and 

communications to discuss the bids and price quotations to be submitted to customers in the United 

States and elsewhere. 

115. During these meetings, conversations, and communications, Defendants agreed 

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

116. Defendants likewise agreed to allocate the supply of Fuel Injection Systems sold to 

customers in the United States and elsewhere on a model-by-model basis. 

117. Defendants also agreed to coordinate price adjustments requested by customers in 

the United States and elsewhere. 

118. In accordance with their agreements, Defendants submitted collusive bids, price 

quotations, and price adjustments to customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

119. Plaintiff and the Class could not have discovered the conspiracy 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 to 

fraudulently conceal, their conduct. 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1753 Filed 07/18/19 Page 24 of 30
25 

120. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s 

claims was tolled and did not begin to run until at least September 26, 2013. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT 

121. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth 

here. 

122. Defendants entered into and engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy in 

an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 

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

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. 

124. Commencing at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until the present, the 

exact dates being currently unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants entered into a continuing agreement, 

understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain 

prices for Fuel Injection Systems, creating anticompetitive effects. 

125. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts were intentionally directed at the United States 

market and had a substantial and foreseeable effect on interstate commerce by raising and fixing 

prices for Fuel Injection Systems throughout the United States. 

126. As a result of the conspiracy alleged herein, the prices charged to Plaintiff and the 

other members of the Class for Fuel Injection Systems were unlawfully raised, fixed, maintained, 

or stabilized in the United States. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1754 Filed 07/18/19 Page 25 of 30
26 

127. The conspiracy has had the following effects: 

a. prices paid by Plaintiff and the Class for Fuel Injection Systems were raised 

to, or fixed, maintained, or stabilized at, non-competitive levels; 

b. Plaintiff and the Class have been deprived of the benefits of free, open, and 

unrestricted competition in the market for Fuel Injection Systems; and 

c. competition in the market for Fuel Injection Systems has been unlawfully 

restrained, suppressed, or eliminated. 

128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the 

Class have been damaged, and will continue to be damaged, by paying supra-competitive prices 

that they would not have had to pay in the absence of the unlawful conduct of Defendants as 

alleged herein. 

129. The conspiracy is a per se violation of the federal antitrust laws. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment on its behalf and on behalf of 

the Class herein, and respectfully requests 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 Plaintiff as the designated Class representative 

and its counsel as Class Counsel; 

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, 15 U.S.C. § 1; 

C. That Plaintiff and the Class recover damages sustained by them, as provided by the 

federal antitrust laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class be 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1755 Filed 07/18/19 Page 26 of 30
27 

entered against the Defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws 

pursuant to 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 Plaintiff and the Class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees as provided by law; 

F. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in 

accordance with law; and 

G. That Plaintiff and the Class receive such other or further relief as may be just and 

proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all 

issues so triable. 

Dated: July 18, 2019 /s/ David H. Fink__________ 

David H. Fink (P28235) 

Darryl Bressack (P67820) 

Nathan J. Fink (P75185) 

FINK BRESSACK 

38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

Telephone: (248) 971-2500 

dfink@finkbressack.com 

dbressack@finkbressack.com 

nfink@finkbressack.com 

Interim Liaison Counsel for the Direct 

Purchaser Plaintiff 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1756 Filed 07/18/19 Page 27 of 30
28 

 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. 

1600 Market Street; Suite 2500 

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 

FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 

2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 

Bannockburn, IL 60015 

Telephone: (224) 632-4500 

skanner@fklmlaw.com 

wlondon@fklmlaw.com 

mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1757 Filed 07/18/19 Page 28 of 30
29 

 Eugene A. Spector 

William G. Caldes 

Jeffrey L. Spector 

SPECTOR ROSEMAN & 

 KODROFF, P.C. 

2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 496-0300 

espector@srkattorneys.com 

bcaldes@srkattorneys.com

jspector@srkattorneys.com 

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiff VITEC, 

L.L.C. and the Proposed Class

 Carl E. Person 

225 E. 36th Street – Suite 3A 

New York, N.Y. 10016-3664 

Telephone: (212) 307- 4444 

carlpers2@gmail.com 

Irwin B. Levin 

COHEN & MALAD, LLP 

One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Telephone: (317) 636-6481

ilevin@cohenandmalad.com 

 Manuel J. Dominguez 

COHEN MILSTEIN 

2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

Telephone: (877) 515-7955 

jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com 

 Solomon B. Cera 

CERA LLP 

595 Market St., Suite 1350 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-5189 

scera@cerallp.com 

Additional Counsel for Plaintiff VITEC, L.L.C. 

and the Proposed Class 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1758 Filed 07/18/19 Page 29 of 30
30 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 18, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the 

Clerk of the court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel 

of record registered for electronic filing. 

FINK BRESSACK 

By: /s/Nathan J. Fink 

David H. Fink (P28235) 

Darryl Bressack (P67820) 

Nathan J. Fink (P75185) 

38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

Telephone: (248) 971-2500 

nfink@finkbressack.com 

Case 2:13-cv-02201-SFC-RSW ECF No. 103, PageID.1759 Filed 07/18/19 Page 30 of 30