UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALL EUROPEAN AUTO SUPPLY, INC.,

individually and on behalf of a class of all others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DENSO CORPORATION, DENSO

INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., DENSO 

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AMERICAS, INC.,

DENSO INTERNATIONAL KOREA 

CORPORATION, HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI 

AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LTD., HITACHI 

AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS AMERICAS, LTD., 

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION, 

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC US HOLDINGS, INC., 

and MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE 

AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendants.

Case No. ____________________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff All European Auto Supply, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of the 

proposed class of direct purchasers of Alternators (as defined below), brings this action against 

Defendants DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO Products and 

Services Americas, Inc., DENSO International Korea Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric 

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

Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, 

Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”), and other unnamed co-conspirators, for damages under the 

antitrust laws of the United States and demands a jury trial, and, upon personal information as to 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 1
2

the facts pertaining to itself and upon information and belief as to all other matters, hereby 

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), in conjunction with various 

domestic and foreign governmental agencies, is currently conducting an investigation into the 

automotive parts industry that one DOJ official described as “appear[ing] to be the biggest 

criminal antitrust investigation that we’ve ever encountered.” The DOJ’s investigation 

encompasses a wide array of automotive parts and has already yielded billions of dollars in 

criminal fines as well as dozens of prison sentences. 

2. Some of the parts being investigated include “Alternators.” These are devices 

that charge a vehicle’s battery and power the electrical system of a vehicle when its engine is 

running. If an Alternator is not performing properly, the vehicle’s battery eventually will lose its 

charge, thus causing all electrical systems in the vehicle to cease working. When an Alternator 

fails, it is usually replaced rather than repaired.

3. Defendants are competing manufacturers of Alternators sold throughout the 

United States, or installed in motor vehicles manufactured or sold throughout the United States,

that, together with their as-yet unknown co-conspirators, entered into an agreement, 

combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate 

the market and customers in the United States for Alternators. This agreement, combination, or 

conspiracy constituted an unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and foreign trade and 

commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

4. Defendants Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation have already pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 2
3

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, Alternators in violation of the Sherman Act. Hitachi 

Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation have agreed to pay fines of $195 

million and $190 million, respectively, for their participation in a conspiracy involving 

Alternators, among other automotive parts. In addition, Defendant Denso Corporation has 

already pled guilty to participating in a similar conspiracy involving various other automotive 

parts in violation of the Sherman Act and agreed to pay a fine of $78 million. 

5. Foreign competition authorities also have been investigating Defendants’ 

collusion concerning Alternators. The Japanese Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) has levied 

fines totaling $41.3 million against various automotive parts manufacturers, including a $17.2 

million fine against Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, for participating in a price-fixing 

conspiracy with respect to various parts including Alternators. The JFTC also found that 

Defendants Denso Corporation, Hitachi Ltd. and Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. participated 

in the Alternator conspiracy, which it held began at least as early as November 2000.

6. As a direct and foreseeable result of the unlawful and anticompetitive conduct 

alleged herein, Plaintiff and others like it paid artificially inflated prices for Alternators during 

the period starting at least as early as January 1, 2000 and continuing to the present (the “Class 

Period”).

7. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of direct purchasers consisting of all persons 

and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased Alternators in the United States from one or 

more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 3
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain injunctive relief and to recover treble 

damages, costs of suit, and reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees, resulting from Defendants’ 

violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

9. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 4 

and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

10. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants as each of them, 

either directly or through the ownership or control of their United States subsidiaries, (a) resides 

in this District, (b) transacted business throughout the United States, including in this District, (c) 

sold or marketed substantial quantities of Alternators throughout the United States, including in 

this District, (d) committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein in the 

United States, including in this District, (e) was engaged in a conspiracy that was directed at, and 

had a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable and intended effect of causing injury to the 

business or property of persons and entities throughout the United States, including in this 

District, or (f) had substantial aggregate contacts with the United States as a whole, including in 

this District.

11. 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, one or more of the Defendants reside in this 

District, and a substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce has been carried 

out in this District. 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 4
5

PARTIES

Plaintiff

12. Plaintiff All European Auto Supply, Inc. (“AEAS”) is a Michigan corporation 

with its principal place of business in Royal Oak, Michigan. AEAS purchased Alternators

directly from one or more of the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators during the Class Period 

and suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

Defendants

The DENSO Defendants

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

of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO Corporation – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, 

which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Alternators that 

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

14. Defendant DENSO International America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in Southfield, Michigan. DENSO International America, Inc., a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant DENSO Corporation, manufactured, marketed, and/or 

sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District,

during the Class Period. At all times during the Class Period, its activities in the United States 

were under the control and direction of its parent company.

15. Defendant DENSO Products and Services Americas, Inc. (f/k/a DENSO Sales 

California, Inc.) is a corporation with its principal place of business in Long Beach, California. 

DENSO Products and Services Americas, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant DENSO 

Corporation, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout 

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

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 5
6

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

company.

16. Defendant DENSO International Korea Corporation is a Korean corporation with 

its principal place of business in Uiwang-si, South Korea. DENSO International Korea 

Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant DENSO Corporation, manufactured, 

marketed, and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. At all times during the Class Period, its activities in the 

United States were under the control and direction of its parent company.

17. Defendants DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO

Products and Services Americas, Inc., and DENSO International Korea Corporation are 

collectively referred to herein as “DENSO” or the “DENSO Defendants.”

The Hitachi Defendants

18. Defendant Hitachi, Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of 

business in Tokyo, Japan. Hitachi, Ltd. – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it 

wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Alternators that were 

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

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

principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. – directly and/or 

through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed,

and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period.

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

with its principal place of business in Harrodsburg, Kentucky. Hitachi Automotive Systems 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 6
7

Americas, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., 

manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United 

States, including in this District, during the Class Period. At all times during the Class Period, its 

activities in the United States were under the control and direction of its parent company.

21. Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Hitachi 

Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “Hitachi” or the 

“Hitachi Defendants.”

The Mitsubishi Defendants

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

principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation – directly and/or 

through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed,

and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period.

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

its principal place of business in Cypress, California. Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, is the parent company of 

Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc. Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc. – directly 

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

marketed, and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United States, including in 

this District, during the Class Period. At all times during the Class Period, the activities of 

Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries were under the control and direction of 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 7
8

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

corporation with its principal place of business in Mason, Ohio. Mitsubishi Electric Automotive 

America, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., 

manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Alternators that were purchased throughout the United 

States, including in this District, during the Class Period. At all times during the Class Period, its 

activities in the United States were under the control and direction of its parent company, 

Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and/or the direction of its parent’s parent company, 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.

25. Defendants Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, 

Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as 

“Mitsubishi” or the “Mitsubishi Defendants.”

AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

26. 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 

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.

27. The acts alleged herein that have been performed by Defendants were authorized, 

ordered, and performed by their officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while 

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

28. Each Defendant acted as the agent, principal, or joint venturer of the other 

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

29. The acts alleged herein that have been performed by DENSO International 

America, Inc., DENSO International Korea Corporation, DENSO Products and Services 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 8
9

Americas, Inc., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, 

Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc. were authorized, ordered, and condoned 

by their respective parent companies. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Product Description: Alternators

30. “Alternators” are devices that charge a vehicle’s battery and power the electrical 

system of a vehicle when its engine is running. If the alternator is not functioning properly, the 

battery eventually will lose its charge and all electrical systems in the vehicle will stop working. 

This includes starting the car. When an alternator is not working, it usually is replaced instead of 

repaired. 

31. Alternators are installed by automobile original equipment manufacturers 

(“OEMs”) in new cars as part of the automotive manufacturing process. They also are installed 

in automobiles to replace failing, defective or damaged Alternators.

32. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Alternators that were: 1) 

manufactured in the United States and installed in motor vehicles manufactured in the United 

States or used for replacement parts for motor vehicles in the United States; 2) manufactured 

abroad, exported to the United States, and installed in motor vehicles manufactured and sold in 

the United States; and 3) manufactured abroad and exported into the United States for use as 

replacement parts for motor vehicles in the United States.

B. The Alternators Market

33. In 2011, the United States OEM market for Alternators was approximately $128 

million. 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 9
10

34. The Alternators market has certain characteristics that are conducive to a pricefixing conspiracy and that make Defendants’ conspiracy more plausible, namely there are high 

barriers to entry, demand for the product is inelastic, and the market is highly concentrated.

35. There are substantial barriers to entry in the Alternators market as any new entrant 

would face costly and lengthy start-up costs, including manufacturing plants and equipment, 

research and development, transportation, distribution infrastructure, the obtaining of skilled 

labor, and the existence of long-standing relationships between customers and suppliers. 

Furthermore, Defendants own several patents related to the manufacture of Alternators that 

further inhibit market entry.

36. Demand for Alternators is highly inelastic—i.e., sellers of Alternators can 

increase prices with little or no decline in units sold. This is because there are no viable

substitutes for these products and an Alternator is an essential part of modern motor vehicles 

(even if prices are kept at a supra-competitive level).

37. There is a high level of concentration among firms in the Alternators market. 

According to a leading industry report, as of 2010, the top four suppliers of Alternators 

controlled approximately 70% of the global market.

C. The Request for Quotation Process 

38. When procuring parts such as Alternators for manufacturing a new motor vehicle, 

an OEM issues a Request for Quotation (“RFQ”). Automotive parts manufacturers, such as the 

Defendants, then submit a bid or quotation to the OEM in response to the RFQ. 

39. The RFQ process is designed to obtain competitive, independent bids from 

multiple suppliers. To that end, an OEM will issue the RFQ to multiple competing parts 

suppliers, those suppliers will submit bids, and the OEM will select a winner (usually the lowest 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 10
11

bid). Sometimes, before selecting the winner, an OEM or the suppliers may revise the technical 

specifications, and revised bids will be submitted.

40. The parts purchased by the OEM in connection with that RFQ are purchased from 

the winning parts manufacturer for the lifespan of the motor vehicle model, which on average is 

between four to six years. During that time frame, whenever an OEM purchases Alternators for 

that motor vehicle model, the OEM purchases the Alternators from the parts manufacturer who 

won the RFQ and was awarded the supply contract, at the price set by that supply contract.

41. The prices set by the RFQ process are also used when direct purchasers other than 

the OEM who issued the RFQ purchase Alternators from the Defendants, such as those 

purchasing Alternators to replace parts as they become worn or damaged. Every subsequent 

purchaser who buys Alternators from that Defendant pays at least the winning price set by the 

RFQ or higher.

42. Thus, the RFQ process described above not only sets the prices for Alternators

incorporated into new motor vehicles manufactured by that particular OEM, it also sets the price 

floor for all other direct purchasers, including those making purchases for use as replacement and 

aftermarket parts.

D. Defendants’ Alternators Conspiracy

43. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a single 

conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for Alternators by price-fixing, rigging 

bids for, and allocating the market and customers of Alternators sold in or into the United States. 

44. In furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendants participated in meetings, telephone 

conversations, emails, and other communications in order to discuss bids and price quotations for 

Alternators sold in or into the United States, and agreed to rig bids and allocate the supply of 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 11
12

those Alternators. Defendants then submitted as part of the RFQ process bids and price 

quotations to the OEMs in accordance with those conspiratorial agreements.

45. Defendants knew and intended that their conduct would impact not only 

Alternators sold to the OEMs as a result of the rigged bidding processes, but also the Alternators

sold to all direct purchasers throughout the United States. 

46. This was because the conspiracy permitted the Defendants to fix, raise, maintain, 

and/or stabilize the prices paid by OEMs in order to set a floor for the prices paid by all other 

direct purchasers of Alternators. 

47. As a result of the conspiracy, OEMs and all or nearly all other direct purchasers of 

Alternators paid supra-competitive prices for those products.

E. Government Investigations and Guilty Pleas

48. Government officials in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan have been 

involved in a globally coordinated antitrust investigation for several years involving automotive 

parts, including Alternators. The investigation began in Europe after some European OEMs 

lodged a complaint with the European Commission (“EC”). 

49. As a result of this investigation, United States, European, and Japanese authorities 

executed surprise raids in February 2010 at the offices of several automotive parts 

manufacturers, including some of the Defendants. To obtain search warrants for the raids 

conducted in the United States, the government was legally required to demonstrate probable 

cause that it would obtain evidence of an antitrust violation as result of executing the warrant—

i.e., the United States must have presented sufficient evidence to the magistrate to convince him 

or her that a person of reasonable caution would believe that raiding these offices would uncover 

additional evidence of antitrust violations.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 12
13

50. As of the filing of this Complaint, thirty-five (35) companies and twenty-nine (29) 

executives have pled guilty or agreed to plead guilty as a result of the DOJ’s automotive parts 

investigation, resulting in more than $2.5 billion in criminal fines and dozens of prison 

sentences. 

51. According to the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena, “This criminal 

activity has a significant impact on the automotive manufacturers in the United States, Canada, 

Japan and Europe and has been occurring at least a decade. The conduct had also affected 

commerce on a global scale in almost every market where automobiles are manufactured and/or 

sold.”

Hitachi and Mitsubishi Have Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing Alternators

52. Defendants Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation have pled guilty to participating in a combination or conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of Alternators in violation of the Sherman Act. 

53. The respective plea agreements also covered these Defendants’ “related entities”

or “subsidiaries,” including Defendants named in this complaint. For example, the Hitachi

agreement included a promise by the DOJ not to prosecute “any of its related entities [including

Defendant Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. and the former Hitachi Automotive 

Systems Group of Defendant Hitachi, Ltd. as it existed prior to July 1, 2009] for any act or 

offense committed before the date of signature of this Plea Agreement that [] was undertaken in 

furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of automotive parts[.]” 

The Mitsubishi agreement contained a nearly identical provision, except that “related entities” 

was replaced by “subsidiaries.” Similarly, the Hitachi agreement provided that the “United 

States will not bring criminal charges against any current or former director, officer, or employee 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 13
14

of the defendant or its related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of 

signature of this Plea Agreement;” the Mitsubishi agreement contained the same language but for 

the substitution of “subsidiaries” for “related entities.” In addition, the plea agreements required 

cooperation from these related entities or subsidiaries, as the case may be, and their respective 

officers, directors and employees. 

54. According to separate Informations filed against these Defendants, Hitachi 

Automotive Systems, Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, and their co-conspirators carried out 

their conspiracy by, among other things:

(a) participating 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) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, on bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to allocate the supply of automotive parts sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to coordinate price adjustments requested by 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(e) submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere in 

accordance with the agreements reached;

(f) selling automotive parts to automobile manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices;

(g) accepting payment for automotive parts sold to automobile 

manufacturers in the United State and elsewhere at collusive and 

noncompetitive prices;

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 14
15

(h) engaging 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 pricefixing scheme; and

(i) employing measures to keep their conduct secret, including, but 

not limited to, using code names and meeting at remote locations.

55. The separate Informations filed against these Defendants also provided additional 

details regarding their participation in the conspiracy:

56. Hitachi: On September 26, 2013, the DOJ announced that Defendant Hitachi 

Automotive Systems, Ltd. agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy regarding 

certain automotive parts, including Alternators, from at least as early as January 2000 until at 

least February 2010. As part of its guilty plea, Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. agreed to pay a 

$195 million fine.

57. Hitachi’s employees took steps to obstruct the DOJ’s criminal investigation into 

its collusive conduct. According to its plea agreement, in February 2010, some of Hitachi’s 

employees became aware of a criminal investigation into the automotive parts industry when one 

of its competitors was searched by United States law enforcement authorities. Over the next 

several days, the employees took steps to destroy incriminating evidence. In addition, in July 

2011, certain of Hitachi’s employees discovered that Hitachi was being raided by antitrust 

authorities outside of the United States. Immediately after learning of the search, those 

employees took steps to destroy incriminating evidence. On both occurrences, the evidence 

destroyed included electronic files and paper documents. Some of the employees involved in 

these efforts were Hitachi’s senior managers.

58. Additionally, on September 18, 2014, the DOJ announced a one-count indictment 

against four executives at Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.—Takashi Toyokuni, Ken Funasaki, 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 15
16

Kazunobu Tsunekawa, and Tomiya Itakura—charging them with conspiring to fix prices of 

various automotive parts, including Alternators, between at least January 2000 and February 

2010.

59. On April 23, 2015, one of the four executives, Takashi Toyokuni, a former 

manager and director with responsibility over Alternators and starters at Hitachi Automotive 

Systems, Ltd., pled guilty. He was sentenced to 15 months and ordered to pay $20,000.

60. Mitsubishi: On September 26, 2013, the DOJ announced that Defendant 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy regarding

certain automotive parts, including Alternators, from at least as early as January 2000 until at 

least February 2010.1 As part of its guilty plea, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation agreed to pay a 

$190 million fine.

61. Like Hitachi, Mitsubishi also took steps to frustrate the DOJ’s criminal 

investigation into its collusive conduct. According to Mitsubishi’s plea agreement, in February 

2010, Mitsubishi’s employees became aware of a criminal investigation into the automotive parts 

industry when one of its competitors was searched by United States law enforcement authorities. 

At that point, the employees took steps to destroy incriminating evidence, including electronic 

 1 According to paragraph 13 of Mitsubishi Electric Corporation’s Plea Agreement, the term 

“[a]utomotive parts” was defined as AC generators, air bag sensors, air bags, air flow sensors, 

alternators, cam and crank sensors, electric power steering motors, electronic control units, 

exhaust gas recirculation valves, fuel injectors, fuel pumps, high intensity discharge ballasts, 

ignition coils, integrated units, keyless entry systems, manifold absolute pressure sensors, purge 

control valves, starter motors, throttle bodies, variable cam timing, and variable valve timing. 

The Information filed the same day, however, states that Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and its 

co-conspirators agreed “to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, certain 

automotive parts, including starter motors, alternators, and ignition coils.” It is unclear whether

or not this list was meant to be exhaustive or representative (i.e.. if the various other parts 

identified in the Plea Agreement were also subject to the same big ridding, marketing allocation, 

and price-fixing activities).

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 16
17

files and paper documents located in both the United States and Japan. These steps were 

approved by senior managers based in Japan.

62. On September 18, 2014, the DOJ announced a three-count indictment against 

three executives at Mitsubishi Electric Corp.—Atsushi Ueda, Minoru Kurisaki, and Hideyuki 

Saito. Count one charged all three executives with conspiring to fix prices of various automotive 

parts, including Alternators, between at least January 2000 and February 2010. Count two 

charged Kurisaki and Saito with knowingly conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying 

documents and corruptly persuading, and attempting to persuade others, to destroy documents. 

Count three charged Saito with knowingly and corruptly persuading, and attempting to persuade, 

executives to destroy documents and delete electronic data that may contain evidence of antitrust 

crimes in the United States and elsewhere.

DENSO Has Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing Other Automotive Parts

63. DENSO has pled guilty to participating in combinations or conspiracies to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of other automotive parts in violation of the Sherman Act.

64. According to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder of the Antitrust 

Division’s Criminal Enforcement Program, “The participants in this conspiracy were not located 

in just one country or region of the world.” Snyder further stated, “Collusion related to 

automotive parts was global in nature and our efforts to hold responsible companies and 

individuals accountable for the resulting harm to U.S. consumers and businesses.”

65. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Defendant DENSO Corporation 

had agreed to pay a $78 million fine and plead guilty to a two-count criminal Information 

charging it with: (1) 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 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 17
18

maintain the prices of, electronic control units (“ECUs”) sold to an automobile manufacturer in 

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

2010 in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; and (2) 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, heater 

control panels (“HCPs”) sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere 

from at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until at least February 2010 in violation of 

the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 .

66. Defendant DENSO Corporation’s subsidiary, Defendant DENSO International 

Korea Corporation, was a member of the DENSO family that performed manufacturing and/or 

marketing and sales operations with respect to sales of products to Korean automobile 

manufacturers. For DENSO to effectuate the conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids on, among 

other products, Alternators, Defendant DENSO International Korea Corporation was a 

designated entity for rigging bids in response to RFQs issued by Korean automobile 

manufacturers.

67. According to the criminal Information filed against it, Defendant DENSO

Corporation and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracies by:

(a) participating in meetings, conversations, and communications in 

the United States and Japan to discuss the bids and price quotations 

to be submitted to certain automobile and internal combustion 

engine manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(b) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, on bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

certain automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers;

(c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to allocate the supply of automotive parts sold to 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 18
19

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere, in some cases on a model-by-model 

or an engine-specific basis;

(d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to coordinate price adjustments requested by 

certain automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers

in the United States and elsewhere;

(e) submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to certain

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere in accordance with the agreements 

reached;

(f) selling automotive parts to certain automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices;

(g) accepting payment for automotive parts sold to certain automobile 

and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices;

(h) engaging in meetings, conversations, and communications for the 

purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon 

bid-rigging and price-fixing scheme; and

(i) employing measures to keep their conduct secret, including but not 

limited to using code names and meeting at private residences or 

remote locations.

The JFTC Has Ruled Defendants Price-Fixed Alternators

68. The United States is not alone in its investigation of anticompetitive conduct in 

the automotive parts industry in general and regarding Alternators in particular. The JFTC’s 

investigation into collusion in the Alternators market culminated on November 22, 2012, when it

issued cease-and-desist orders and handed out fines to various automotive parts manufacturers 

for conspiring to fix the prices of various automotive parts, including Alternators. The JFTC 

found that the anticompetitive conduct focused on Alternators began at least as early as 

November 2000.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 19
20

69. The JFTC issued a cease-and-desist order and fined Defendant Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation $17.2 million for violating antitrust laws by forming a cartel to fix prices for 

automotive parts, including Alternators. The order required the company to immediately pass 

resolutions that it would terminate illegal conduct, to contact any automobile maker who may 

have purchased its parts through collusive bidding processes, and to implement employee 

compliance programs.

70. The JFTC also found that Defendants DENSO Corporation, Hitachi Ltd., and 

Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. also violated the antitrust laws by participating to fix the 

prices of Alternators, among other parts.

71. The JFTC found that the above-referenced Defendants rigged the bidding process 

for supply contracts with automobile manufacturers for various automotive parts, including 

Alternators, by pre-ordaining the winners and losers for bids. The JFTC explained that these 

companies “substantially restrained competition in the fields of each product ordered by each 

automobile company, by designated successful bidders.”

ANTITRUST INJURY

72. Defendants’ conspiracy suppressed price competition among Defendants, causing 

prices for Alternators to be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. 

73. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the Class paid supra-competitive prices 

for Alternators and were deprived of the benefits of a competitive market throughout the Class 

Period. 

74. Therefore, as a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff 

and the members of the Class have been injured in their business or property in that they paid 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 20
21

more for Alternators than they would have in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful and 

anticompetitive conduct.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

75. Plaintiff brings this action both on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated (the “Class”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). 

The Class is defined as follows:

All individuals and entities that purchased Alternators in the United States 

directly from one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators (or their 

controlled subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures) from January 1, 2000 

through the present.

76. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class members, such information 

being in the exclusive control of Defendants. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce 

involved, however, Plaintiff believes that the member of the Class are so numerous and 

geographically dispersed throughout the United States that joinder of all Class members is 

impracticable.

77. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, including, but not limited 

to, the following:

(a) Whether Defendants engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix, 

raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Alternators sold in the United States;

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

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

and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy;

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 21
22

(e) Whether the contract, combination, or conspiracy caused Alternators prices to 

be higher than they would have been in the absence of Defendants’ conduct;

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

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

other Class members; 

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

conspiracy’s existence from the Plaintiff and other Class members;

(h) Whether Plaintiff and other Class members are entitled to injunctive relief 

and, if so, the nature and extent of such relief; and

(i) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages.

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

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members.

79. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff directly 

purchased Alternators from one or more of the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators, all Class 

members were damaged by the same conspiracy alleged herein, and the relief sought by Plaintiff

is common to the Class.

80. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class in that 

Plaintiff is a direct purchaser of Alternators and has no conflict with any other members of the 

Class. Furthermore, Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in antitrust, class 

action, and other complex litigation.

81. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby 

making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 22
23

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

adjudication of this controversy. Prosecution of this matter as a class action will eliminate the 

possibility of repetitive litigation and there are no inherent barriers to managing the case as a 

class action.

83. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create the 

risk of inconsistent or varying outcomes.

84. The Class is also readily definable and is one for which records likely exist in the 

files of Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIMELY

85. Plaintiff 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 the earliest, September 26, 2013. On that date, the DOJ publicly announced the

impending guilty pleas of Defendants Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation.

86. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not discover, nor could 

they have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of the 

conspiracy alleged herein, until September 26, 2013. Prior to that time, there was insufficient 

information to suggest that any of the Defendants was involved in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig 

bids, or allocate the market for Alternators. 

87. Moreover, fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations on the claims 

asserted herein by Plaintiff and the members of the Class until at least September 26, 2013. 

Defendants affirmatively and wrongfully concealed their anticompetitive conduct since the Class 

Period began. 

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 23
24

88. Defendants’ conspiracy, by its very nature, was inherently self-concealing. 

Moreover, because Alternators are not exempt from antitrust regulation, and because the price 

for Alternators was set through an RFQ process that Plaintiff and members of the class had 

reason to believe was competitive, Plaintiff and the members of the Class reasonably believed 

they were making Alternators purchases in a competitive industry.

89. In addition, Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal their conspiracy and 

carry it out in a manner that would preclude detection. For example, Defendants have used code 

names and met in remote locations in order to keep their anticompetitive conduct secret.

90. One or more of the Defendants have already pled guilty to purposefully 

destroying evidence to avoid detection. For example, the Plea Agreement for Defendant Hitachi 

Automotive Systems, Ltd. states:

In February 2010, certain employees of the defendant became aware of a 

criminal antitrust investigation when one of their co-conspirators in the 

criminal activity described in paragraphs 4(a) – (d) of this Plea Agreement 

was searched by Federal law enforcement authorities in the United States. 

Over the next several days, certain employees of the defendant took steps 

to destroy evidence of the defendant’s criminal activity described in 

paragraphs 4(a) – (d). In July 2011, certain employees of the defendant 

learned that the defendant was being raided by law enforcement 

authorities outside the United States in connection with an investigation 

into violations of competition laws. Immediately after learning of the 

search, certain employees of the defendant took steps to destroy evidence 

of the criminal activity described in paragraphs 4(a) – (d) to prevent its 

discovery by law enforcement authorities. On both occasions, the 

evidence that was destroyed included electronic files and paper 

documents. Certain employees involved in the efforts to destroy evidence 

were senior managers of the defendant.

Similar admissions were made in the Plea Agreement for Defendant Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 24
25

91. As described above, several employees of the Defendants have pled guilty to

charges of obstruction of justice in which they admitted to deleting, destroying, altering, 

falsifying and/or concealing records and documents, including emails and electronic files. 

92. Because Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct was both self-concealing and 

affirmatively concealed, Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not learn or discover the 

operative facts giving rise to this Complaint prior to September 26, 2013. No information, actual 

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

have led a reasonably diligent person to investigate whether a conspiracy existed prior to 

September 26, 2013.

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

claims did not begin to run or were otherwise tolled until September 26, 2013.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

(Against All Defendants)

94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

95. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into a 

continuing agreement, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, 

maintain, or stabilize prices for Alternators sold in or into the United States.

96. As horizontal competitors, Defendants’ agreement, combination, or conspiracy 

thus constitutes a per se violation of the federal antitrust laws.

97. In accordance with this agreement, combination, or conspiracy, Defendants and 

their co-conspirators endeavored to and succeeded in rigging bids, allocating the market, and 

fixing prices for Alternators sold in or into the United States during the Class Period.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 25
26

98. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators took at 

least the following affirmative actions:

(a) Participated in meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss the bids and 

price quotations for Alternators to be submitted to direct purchasers in the United 

States; 

(b) Agreed on bids and price quotations for Alternators to be submitted to direct 

purchasers in the United States; 

(c) Submitted bids and price quotations to direct purchasers of Alternators in accordance 

with the agreements reached;

(d) Manipulated prices and allocated supply of Alternators sold in or into the United 

States; 

(e) Coordinated price adjustments for Alternators sold in or into the United States; 

(f) Sold Alternators in or into the United States at supra-competitive prices; and

(g) Actively concealed the true nature of their unlawful conduct from Plaintiff and the 

members of the Class in furtherance of the conspiracy.

99. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Plaintiff and the 

members of the Class have been injured in their business and property in that they paid more for 

Alternators during the Class Period than they would have absent the anticompetitive conduct of 

Defendants and their co-conspirators.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

of the Class proposed herein, and respectfully requests the following relief:

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 26
27

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 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 Plaintiff 

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

reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law; 

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

G. That Plaintiff and members of the Class receive such other or further relief as may 

be just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all of the claims 

asserted in this Complaint so triable.

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 27
28

Dated: May 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Aubrey H. Tobin_________________

Aubrey H. Tobin (P31256)

Attorney at Law, P.C. 

2140 Walnut Lake Road 

West Bloomfield, MI 48323 

Telephone: (248) 932-3070 

Aubrey@tobinpc.com

M. John Dominguez

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS 

& TOLL PLLC

2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 515-1431

jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

David A. Young

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS

& TOLL PLLC

1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: (202) 408-4600

dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

Matthew W. Ruan

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS

& TOLL PLLC

88 Pine Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10005

Telephone: (212) 838-7797

mruan@cohenmilstein.com

Christopher J. Cormier

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS

& TOLL PLLC

2443 S. University Boulevard, #232

Denver, CO 80210

Telephone: (720) 583-0650

ccormier@cohenmilstein.com

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 28
29

Solomon B. Cera

Thomas C. Bright

Pamela A. Markert

CERA LLP

595 Market Street, Suite 2300

San Francisco, CA 94105-2835

Telephone: (415) 777-2230

scera@cerallp.com

tbright@cerallp.com

pmarkert@cerallp.com

2:15-cv-11828-MOB-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 29