UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

__________________________________________ 

WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse : 

and KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a KMB Warehouse : 

Distributors, Inc., individually and behalf of all : 

others similarly situated, : Civil Action No. 

 Plaintiffs, : 

v. : 

 : 

NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., NGK Spark Plugs : 

(U.S.A.), Inc., Denso Corporation, : 

 Denso International America, Inc., : 

 Denso Products & Services Americas f/k/a Denso : 

 Sales California, Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, : 

 and Robert Bosch LLC, : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

__________________________________________: 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse and KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a/ 

KMB Warehouse Distributors Inc., individually and on behalf of a proposed class of direct 

purchasers of Spark Plugs, bring this class action against Defendants under the federal antitrust 

laws for treble damages and allege as follows. 

NATURE OF THE CASE 

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

global manufacturers and suppliers of Spark Plugs – violated the antitrust laws by entering into a 

continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Spark Plugs sold 

in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. As a result of Defendants’ 

unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class members paid artificially inflated prices for Spark 

Plugs and as a result have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property in violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 1
2

2. In the related U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division criminal investigation 

of price fixing in the motor vehicle parts industry, Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. 

(“NGK”), which is currently the largest manufacturer of spark plugs in the world, producing over 

500 million NGK brand spark plugs per year, and Robert Bosch GmbH, the world’s largest 

independent parts supplier to the automotive industry, have been criminally charged and agreed 

to plead guilty to antitrust violations with respect to Spark Plugs and other products. 

3. Plaintiffs bring this action under Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1, 3 (“Sherman Act”) and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15 (“Clayton Act”), and 

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

pertain to Plaintiffs, which are based upon personal knowledge. Plaintiffs’ information and 

belief are based upon, inter alia, the investigation made by their attorneys. 

DEFINITIONS 

4. A “Spark Plug” is an engine component for delivering high electric voltage from 

the ignition system to the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine. It ignites the 

compressed fuel/air mixture with an electric spark while containing combustion pressure within 

the engine. Spark Plugs have a basic manufacturing design composed primarily of a shell, an 

insulator, a center electrode and an external (ground) electrode. 

5. The “Class Period” is from at least as early as January 2000 through and including 

the present. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover treble damages, and costs of suit and 

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

§§ 1, 3. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 2
3

7. 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. 

8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 22, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c) and (d) because a substantial part of the events 

giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, a substantial portion of the affected 

interstate trade and commerce discussed below has been carried out in this District, and one or 

more of the Defendants resides in, is licensed to do business in, is doing business in, had agents 

in, is found in or transacts business in this District. 

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

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

States. 

10. 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 Spark Plugs 

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 price 

fixing 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 

11. Plaintiff WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse is a Rhode Island 

corporation located in Providence, Rhode Island. WAL, Inc. purchased Spark Plugs directly 

from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 3
4

12. Plaintiff KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a KMB Warehouse Distributors Inc. is a Connecticut 

corporation located in New York and Connecticut. KMB/CT, Inc. purchased Spark Plugs 

directly from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period. 

NGK Defendants 

13. Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal 

place of business located in Nagoya, Japan. 

14. Defendant NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (“NGK USA”) is a West Virginia 

corporation with its principal place of business located in Wixom, Michigan. NGK USA is a 

subsidiary of, and is owned and controlled by, its parent, NGK. 

15. NGK and NGK USA are hereinafter jointly referred to as the “NGK Defendants” 

or “NGK.” 

16. The NGK Defendants manufactured, marketed, or sold Spark Plugs in (or sold 

them into) the United States during the Class Period. 

Denso Defendants 

17. Defendant Denso Corporation (“Denso”) is a Japanese corporation with its 

principal place of business located in Kariya, Japan.

18. Defendant Denso International America, Inc. (“Denso International”) is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Southfield, Michigan. 

Denso International is a subsidiary of, and is owned and controlled by, its parent, Denso. 

19. Denso Products & Services Americas (“DPSA”) f/k/a Denso Sales California, Inc. 

(which was a subsidiary of Denso) is a corporation with its principal place of business in 

California. DPSA is a subsidiary of, and is owned and controlled by, its parent, Denso 

International. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 4
5

20. Defendants Denso, Denso International and DPSA are hereinafter jointly referred 

to as the “Denso Defendants” or “Denso.” 

21. The Denso Defendants manufactured, marketed, or sold Spark Plugs in (or sold 

them into) the United States during the Class Period. 

The Bosch Defendants 

22. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH (“Bosch”) is a privately held German company 

with its principal place of business in Stuttgart, Germany. 

23. Defendant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch LLC”) has its principal place of business 

located in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Bosch LLC is a subsidiary of, and is owned and 

controlled by, its parent, Bosch. 

24. Bosch and Bosch LLC are hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Bosch 

Defendants” or “Bosch.” 

25. The Bosch Defendants manufactured, marketed, or sold Spark Plugs in (or sold 

them into) the United States during the Class Period. 

DEFENDANTS’ CO-CONSPIRATORS AND AGENTS

26. The acts alleged in this Complaint to have been done by Defendants NGK USA, 

Denso International, DPSA and Bosch LLC were authorized, ordered and condoned by their 

parent companies and the acts alleged to have been done by the NGK, Denso and Bosch 

Defendants were authorized, ordered and performed by their officers, directors, agents, 

employees or representatives while engaged in the management, direction, control or transaction 

of their business affairs. 

27. Various persons or firms not named as Defendants have participated as coconspirators in the violations alleged herein and have performed acts and made statements in 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 5
6

furtherance thereof. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of their coconspirators whether named or not named as Defendants in this Complaint. 

28. Each Defendant acted as a principal or an agent of or for the other Defendants 

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

INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE 

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

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

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

quantities of Spark Plugs in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate and foreign 

commerce. 

THE U.S. ANTITRUST AND WORLDWIDE INVESTIGATIONS 

INTO PRICE FIXING IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS INDUSTRY 

31. According to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the motor vehicle 

parts investigation, of which Spark Plugs is a part, is the “largest criminal investigation the 

[DOJ] has ever pursued,” both in terms of scope and potential volume of commerce affected by 

the alleged illegal conduct. 

32. With respect to the United States price fixing investigation, in February 2010, the 

same month that Japanese and European authorities conducted raids, FBI investigators executed 

warrants and searched the offices of three Japanese motor vehicle part makers in metropolitan 

Detroit. Denso International was among the companies searched. 

33. Commenting on her division’s investigation, Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assisting 

Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, stated that “[a]s a 

result of this international price-fixing and bid-ridding conspiracy, automobile manufacturers 

paid noncompetitive and higher prices for parts in cars sold to U.S. consumers.” She further 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 6
7

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.” 

34. “When companies partner to control and price fix bids or contracts, it undermines 

the foundation of the United States’ economic system,” said FBI’s Special Agent in Charge 

Andrew G. Arena. “The FBI is committed to aggressively pursuing any company involved in 

antitrust crimes.” 

35. In July 2011, the JFTC raided seven Japanese auto parts makers, including 

Defendant Denso. The Japan 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.” 

36. Including Bosch, as of March 2015, 34 companies (and 29 executives) have 

pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty in the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and 

bid rigging in the motor vehicle parts industry and have agreed to pay a total of $2.5 billion in 

criminal fines. 

37. On September 8, 2014, Bosch issued a statement that it had turned itself in to the 

antitrust authorities in Brazil after an internal investigation revealed it had been operating a 

Spark Plug cartel with NGK. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Bosch had agreed to 

plead guilty to conspiring to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and to fix prices for Spark Plugs 

sold to automobile and other internal combustion engine manufacturers in violation of Section 1 

of the Sherman Act. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 7
8

SPARK PLUGS 

38. Spark Plugs manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendants during the Class 

Period are not functionally distinguishable in any material respect. Defendants all can, and do, 

make Spark Plugs for a full range of vehicles and engines. 

39. Spark Plugs are installed by motor vehicle original equipment manufacturers 

(“OEMs”) in new motor vehicles as part of the motor vehicle manufacturing process, as well as 

by other manufacturers of internal combustion engines. They are also installed to replace worn 

out, defective, or damaged Spark Plugs. 

40. 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, distributors, such as Plaintiffs, purchased 

equivalent Spark Plugs directly from Defendants. 

41. When purchasing Spark Plugs, 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 the United States. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 8
9

42. During the Class Period, Defendants sold Spark Plugs directly to OEMs, other 

manufacturers of internal combustion engines, suppliers to OEMs, distributors and other 

purchasers. 

43. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Spark Plugs to OEMs for 

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

Defendants and their co-conspirators manufactured Spark Plugs (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. 

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

horizontal competitors, engaged in a conspiracy to allocate supply, rig bids for and to raise, fix, 

maintain, or stabilize prices of Spark Plugs. As a result of their unlawful conduct, Defendants 

did not compete, and instead enjoyed business insulated from competition. 

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MARKET 

FOR SPARK PLUGS ARE CONDUCIVE TO COLLUSION 

45. In addition to the NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. U.S. guilty plea, Robert Bosch 

GmbH’s U.S. guilty plea and admission that it was in a Spark Plugs cartel with NGK Spark Plug 

Co., Ltd. in Brazil, and Denso being a major Spark Plugs manufacturer that has pled guilty to 

price-fixing and bid-rigging of other motor vehicle parts, several important economic 

characteristics of the market for Spark Plugs render it plausible that there was collusion among 

the Defendant Spark Plug suppliers. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 9
10

High Barriers to Entry 

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

would, under normal circumstances, attract new entrants seeking to benefit from the supracompetitive pricing. Where, however, there are significant barriers to entry, new entrants are 

less likely. Therefore, high barriers to entry help facilitate a cartel. 

47. There are high barriers to entry in the market for Spark Plugs. 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. 

Price Inelasticity 

48. 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 

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

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

49. Spark Plugs are required for non-diesel internal combustion engines. There are 

no viable substitute products. Therefore, pricing for Spark Plugs is highly inelastic. 

Opportunities for Collusion 

50. Defendants attended industry events, fostering opportunities to conspire. Such 

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

DEFENDANTS’ ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY

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

of, and to raise, fix and maintain prices for Spark Plugs sold in or into the United States. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 10
11

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

furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, as described below. 

53. 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 Spark Plugs sold in or into the United States. 

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

and communications to allocate the supply of Spark Plugs, and on bids and price quotations and 

adjustments for Spark Plugs sold in or into the United States. 

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

adjustments to motor vehicle manufacturers and other engine manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere in accordance with their conspiratorial agreements. 

56. Defendants sold Spark Plugs to customers in the United States and elsewhere at 

collusive and non-competitive prices. 

57. Defendants accepted payments for Spark Plugs sold in the United States and 

elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices. 

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

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

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

their unlawful conduct. 

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

response to RFQs. 

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

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

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 11
12

parts suppliers, (b) the suppliers submit bids, (c) depending on the OEM and product, the OEM 

and suppliers may revise the technical specifications and the pricing, (d) the suppliers submit 

revised bids, and (e) the OEM selects the winner. 

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

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

63. When OEMs purchase Spark Plugs directly from the supplier to whom it awarded 

the contract, the OEMs purchase the Spark Plugs at the winning price. 

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

RFQ process purchase Spark Plugs directly from the winning Spark Plugs bidder for 

incorporation into products manufactured for and sold to OEMs. Those suppliers, who directly 

purchase Spark Plugs from the winning bidder, pay the winning bidder at least the winning price. 

The OEM price sets the floor for pricing of Spark Plugs. 

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

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

allow the supplier that had the existing Spark Plugs business for a particular model to win the 

Spark Plugs business for the successor model. 

67. Further, Defendants coordinated their Spark Plugs pricing. Defendants 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 insure that the 

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

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

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 12
13

68. During the class period 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 Spark Plugs and allocate 

sales of Spark Plugs. 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; 

b. Colluding with regard to RFQs for Spark Plugs 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 Spark Plugs 

RFQs and reaching conspiratorial agreements with respect to RFQs by means of 

communications on multiple occasions to coordinate responses and exchanges and 

adjustments of Spark Plugs pricing before submission to OEMs in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

69. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew and intended that their actions 

regarding their sales of Spark Plugs to motor vehicle manufacturers would have a direct impact 

on prices for Spark Plugs sold to all direct purchasers of Spark Plugs throughout the United 

States. Defendants’ scheme was implemented, succeeded, and affected the prices for all Spark 

Plugs. 

UNITED STATES AND OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES 

70. On August 19, 2014, the DOJ charged NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. with 

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

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 13
14

automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices 

of, spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air fuel ratio sensors” in violation of Section 1 of 

the Sherman Act. 

71. According to the criminal Information, NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. and its coconspirators: 

a. participated in meetings, conversations, and communications in Japan and 

Germany to discuss the bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain motor vehicle 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

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

bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain motor vehicle manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere; 

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

allocate the supply of Spark Plugs sold to certain motor vehicle manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere on a model-by-model basis or on an engine-specific basis; 

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

coordinate price adjustments requested by certain motor vehicle manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere; 

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

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

agreements reached; 

f. sold Spark Plugs to certain motor vehicle manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 14
15

g. accepted payment for Spark Plugs sold to certain motor vehicle 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

and, 

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

States and elsewhere for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the 

agreed-upon bid-rigging and price-fixing scheme. 

72. Also on August 19, 2014, the DOJ announced that NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. had 

agreed to pay a $52.1 million criminal fine and plead guilty to a one-count criminal information 

charging it with engaging in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the 

prices of Spark Plugs, oxygen sensors and air fuel ratio sensors in violation of the Sherman Act. 

73. In addition to the criminal fine, NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. has agreed to 

cooperate in the DOJ’s ongoing investigation. NGK stated in its press release on August 19, 

2014 that it had cooperated fully with the investigation since July 2011 and strived to enhance 

compliance with the antitrust laws. NGK also stated that the representative directors will 

voluntarily return 30 percent of their compensation for a three month period starting from 

September 2014 and that it apologized to its customers and other stakeholders. 

74. On September 8, 2014, Bosch announced that it operated a Spark Plug cartel with 

NGK in Brazil. Bosch had entered into a leniency agreement regarding its conduct in July 2014 

with the Brazilian Administrative Council for Economic Defense. 

75. Bosch has also publically disclosed that it is cooperating with European antitrust 

authorities investigating motor vehicle parts suppliers. In South Korea, a Bosch subsidiary has 

been charged with colluding with Denso with respect to a motor vehicle part. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 15
16

76. On October 8, 2014, NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.’s Plea Agreement with the United 

States was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern 

Division. 

77. NGK agreed to plead guilty to 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 spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air fuel 

ratio sensors sold in the United States and elsewhere, from at least as early as January 2000 until 

at least July 2011, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.” 

78. The Plea Agreement states that “acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were carried 

out within the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division” and “spark plugs that were the 

subject of the conspiracy were sold to DaimlerChrysler AG, Honda Motor Company, Ltd., 

Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of their U.S. subsidiaries by [NGK Spark Plug Co., 

Ltd.’s] United States subsidiary, which is located in the Eastern District of Michigan.” 

79. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. agreed that its subsidiaries, NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) 

Holding, Inc., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. and NTK Technologies, Inc., would fully 

cooperate with the United States in the prosecution of the Spark Plugs and oxygen sensor cases 

and the automotive parts antirust investigation generally. 

80. Four individuals were excluded from the cooperation provision of the NGK Plea 

Agreement, suggesting that they may be individually charged later with violating United States 

antitrust laws. 

81. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that “Robert Bosch GmbH, the world’s 

largest independent parts supplier to the automotive industry, based in Gerlingen, Germany, has 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $57.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 16
17

prices and rig bids for spark plugs, oxygen sensors and starter motors sold to automobile and 

internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere....” 

82. According to the Information, Bosch “and its co-conspirators participated in a 

combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive and internal 

combustion engine parts industry by agreeing to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, spark plugs and oxygen sensors sold to DaimlerChrysler 

AG, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. and certain of 

their subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere” during the period “from at least as early as 

January 2000 until at least July 2011” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 

83. According to the criminal Information, Bosch and its co-conspirators: 

a. participated in meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss 

 the bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain motor vehicle and engine 

 manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

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

bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain motor vehicle and engine 

manufacturers; 

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

allocate the supply of Spark Plugs sold to motor vehicle and engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere on a model-by-model basis or on an engine-specific basis; 

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

coordinate price adjustments requested by certain motor vehicle and engine 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 17
18

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

vehicle and engine manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere in accordance with 

the agreements reached; 

f. sold Spark Plugs to certain motor vehicle and engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

g. accepted payment for Spark Plugs sold to certain motor vehicle and engine 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

and, 

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

States and elsewhere for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the 

agreed-upon bid-rigging and price-fixing scheme. 

84. Denso is one of the world’s major manufacturers of Spark Plugs (as well as of 

many other motor vehicle parts) and it has been ensnared in the DOJ’s (and other countries’) 

motor vehicle antitrust investigation. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Denso 

Corporation agreed to plead guilty to a two-count criminal information and to pay a total of $78 

million in criminal fines. Denso Corporation was charged with: (a) 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 certain 

electronic control units sold to a motor vehicle 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 

§1 of the Sherman Act; and, (b) 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 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 18
19

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

least February 2010 in violation of the Section1 of the Sherman Act. On March 5, 2012, Denso 

Corporation pleaded guilty to these charges. 

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

emphasize the seriousness of these matters, Denso Corporation’s 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.” 

86. 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.” 

87. On August 21, 2014, Denso announced that it had been fined by the Ontario 

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

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

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

88. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves 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 Spark Plugs in the United States 

from any of the Defendants (or their controlled 

subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint-ventures) between January 

1, 2000 and the present (“the Class”). 

89. 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 Plaintiffs, it is believed to be in the hundreds. The identity of the members of the 

Class can be readily determined from information and records in the possession of Defendants. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 19
20

90. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class. Plaintiffs 

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

they have paid artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs as a result of Defendants’ 

anticompetitive and unlawful conduct. 

91. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the 

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

92. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced and competent in the 

prosecution of antitrust class action litigation. 

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

questions, if any, 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. 

94. 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 the supply of, or to rig bids for, Spark Plugs; 

b. The participants in and duration of the conspiracy; 

c. Whether the conspiracy caused Spark Plugs prices to be higher than they 

would have been in the absence of Defendants’ conduct; 

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

Plaintiffs and members of the Class; 

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

f. Whether Defendants undertook actions to conceal their unlawful 

conspiracy; and, 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 20
21

g. The appropriate measure of the amount of damages suffered by the Class. 

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

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

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

the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. Therefore, the class action device 

presents far fewer case management difficulties and will provide the benefits of unitary 

adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision in a single court. 

ANTITRUST INJURY SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS 

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

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

respect to Spark Plugs; 

b. the prices of Spark Plugs have been raised, fixed, maintained, or stabilized 

at supra-competitive levels; and, 

c. purchasers of Spark Plugs have been deprived of free and open 

competition in the Spark Plugs market. 

97. As a result of the contract, combination, or conspiracy, Plaintiffs and Class 

members paid anticompetitive and higher prices for Spark Plugs than they would have in the 

absence of the conspiracy, and Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained injury to their 

business or property. 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIMELY

98. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above and adopt same 

as though fully set forth herein. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 21
22

99. 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 Defendants’ 

conspiracy would have continued undetected. 

100. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class 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 at least August 19, 2014, at the earliest. As a result, Plaintiffs and the members of 

the Class did not discover, and could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, the existence of the conspiracy alleged herein until at least August 19, 2014, at the 

earliest. 

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

of the Class prior to August 19, 2014, when the DOJ announced the guilty plea of NGK Spark 

Plug Co., Ltd. Prior to that time, there was insufficient information to suggest that any one of the 

Defendants was involved in a Spark Plugs conspiracy. For these reasons, the statute of 

limitations as to Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s claims did not begin to run until at the earliest August 

20, 2014 with respect to the claims that Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have alleged in 

this Complaint. 

102. Further, fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations on the claims 

asserted herein by Plaintiffs and the Class until at least August 19, 2014. Defendants 

affirmatively and wrongfully concealed their anticompetitive conduct from Plaintiffs and the 

Class, from at least as early as January 2000 through at least August 19, 2014. During that time, 

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

Complaint. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 22
23

103. Before at least August 19, 2014, Plaintiffs 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 Spark Plugs during the Class Period. No information, actual 

or constructive, was ever made available to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class that would 

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

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

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

precluded detection. 

105. By its very nature, Defendants’ anti-competitive conspiracy was inherently selfconcealing. Spark Plugs are not exempt from antitrust regulation and, thus, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class reasonably considered it to be a competitive industry. Defendants met and 

communicated in secret and agreed to keep the facts about their collusive conduct from being 

discovered by any member of the public or by the OEMs and other direct purchasers with whom 

they did business. 

106. Defendants represented publicly, both to customers and otherwise, that their 

pricing and bidding activities were unilateral, rather than based on anticompetitive agreements. 

In making those false representations, Defendants misled Plaintiffs and members of the Class as 

to the true, collusive, and coordinated nature of their bid rigging, customer allocation, and pricefixing activities. 

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

that were designed to avoid detection, and which, in fact, successfully precluded detection. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 23
24

108. 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. 

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

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

110. Defendants likewise agreed to allocate the supply of Spark Plugs sold to 

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

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

the United States and elsewhere. 

112. In accordance with the agreements reached by Defendants, they submitted 

collusive bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to customers in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

113. Plaintiffs and the members of 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 fraudulently conceal, their conduct. 

114. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the 

Class’s claims were tolled and did not begin to run until at least August 20, 2014. 

COUNT I: CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT 

115. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above and adopt same 

as though fully set forth herein. 

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

an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 24
25

117. 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. 

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

the exact dates being currently unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into a continuing 

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

or maintain prices for Spark Plugs, creating anticompetitive effects. 

119. 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 Spark Plugs throughout the United States. 

120. As a result of the conspiracy alleged herein, the prices charged to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Class for Spark Plugs were unlawfully raised, fixed, maintained, or stabilized in 

the United States. 

121. The conspiracy has had the following effects: 

a. prices paid by Plaintiffs and members of the Class for Spark Plugs were 

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

b. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been deprived of the benefits of 

free, open, and unrestricted competition in the market for Spark Plugs; and, 

c. competition in the market for Spark Plugs has been unlawfully restrained, 

suppressed, or eliminated. 

122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Class have been damaged and will continue to be damaged by paying supra2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 25
26

competitive prices that they would not have had to pay in the absence of the unlawful conduct of 

Defendants as alleged herein. 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment on their 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 Plaintiffs as the designated Class representatives 

and their 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, 3; 

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 

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 Plaintiffs and members of the Class recover their costs of this suit, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law; 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 26
27

F. That Plaintiffs and members of the Class be awarded pre-judgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with law; and, 

G. That Plaintiffs and members of 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), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all 

issues so triable. 

Dated: May 18, 2015 /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 

Telephone: (248) 971-2500 

dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com 

dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.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 

 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 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 27
28

 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 

 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 

 Carl E. Person 

225 E. 36th Street – Suite 3A 

New York, N.Y. 10016-3664 

Telephone: (212) 307- 4444 

carlpers2@gmail.com 

Linda P. Nussbaum 

Susan R. Schwaiger 

Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. 

570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 702-7053 

lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com 

sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 28
29

 Irwin B. Levin 

COHEN & MALAD, LLP 

One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Telephone: (317) 636-6481

 Warren Rubin 

Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. 

John Wanamaker Building, 

100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Telephone: (215) 561-3600 

Counsel for Plaintiff WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State 

Automotive Warehouse, KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a/ 

KMB Warehouse Distributors Inc. and the 

Proposed Class 

2:15-cv-11774-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/18/15 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 29