IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Master File No. 12-md-02311

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

IN RE: WIRE HARNESS

IN RE: INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS

IN RE: FUEL SENDERS

IN RE: HEATER CONTROL PANELS

IN RE: ALTERNATORS

IN RE: WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEMS

IN RE: RADIATORS

IN RE: STARTERS

IN RE: IGNITION COILS

IN RE: MOTOR GENERATORS

IN RE: HID BALLASTS

IN RE: INVERTERS

IN RE: FAN MOTORS

IN RE: FUEL INJECTION SYSTEMS

IN RE: POWER WINDOW MOTORS

IN RE: AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FLUID 

WARMERS

IN RE: VALVE TIMING CONTROL DEVICES

IN RE: ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODIES

IN RE: AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS

IN RE: WINDSHIELD WASHER SYSTEMS

IN RE: SPARK PLUGS

IN RE: CERAMIC SUBSTRATES

Case No. 2:12-cv-00103-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:12-cv-00203-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:12-cv-00303-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:12-cv-00403-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-00703-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-00903-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-01003-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-01103-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-01403-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-01503-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-01703-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-01803-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02103-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02203-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02303-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02403-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02503-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02603-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02703-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:13-cv-02803-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:16-cv-03803-MOB-MKM

THIS RELATES TO:

END-PAYOR CASES

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS AND

DENSO AND ENTERING DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DENSO

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 3363
This matter has come before the Court to determine whether there is any cause why this 

Court should not approve the settlement between End-Payor Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) and 

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

Korea Corporation, DENSO Korea Automotive Corporation, DENSO Automotive Deutschland 

GmbH, ASMO Co., Ltd., ASMO North America, LLC, ASMO Greenville of North Carolina, 

Inc., and ASMO Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “DENSO”) set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement (“Agreement”), dated July 14, 2016 relating to the above-captioned actions (the 

“Actions”). The Court, after carefully considering all papers filed and proceedings held herein 

and otherwise being fully informed in the premises, has determined (1) that the settlement should 

be approved, and (2) that there is no just reason for delay of the entry of this judgment approving 

the Agreement (“Judgment”). Accordingly, the Court directs entry of Judgment, which shall 

constitute a final adjudication of this case on the merits as to the parties to the Agreement. Good 

cause appearing therefor, it is:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. The definitions of terms set forth in the Agreement are incorporated herein 

as though fully set forth in this Judgment.

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(g), Class 

Counsel, previously appointed by the Court (Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy LLP, Robins Kaplan 

LLP, and Susman Godfrey L.L.P.), are appointed as Counsel for the Settlement Classes. These 

firms have, and will, fairly and competently represent the interests of the Settlement Classes.

3. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, over 

the equitable non-monetary relief contained in paragraph 4, over the Actions, and over the parties 

to the Agreement, including all members of the Settlement Classes.

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 3364
4. Plaintiffs, having filed complaints in the Actions alleging that DENSO

conspired to rig bids, allocate markets and fix prices for the Alleged Parts (as defined in the 

Agreement), and DENSO, having denied Plaintiffs’ allegations and having represented it would 

assert defenses thereto, have entered into the Agreement to settle the Actions with respect to the 

Alleged Parts to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction of burdensome and 

protracted litigation, to obtain the releases, orders, and judgment contemplated by the 

Agreement, and to put to rest with finality all claims that have been or could have been asserted 

against DENSO with respect to Automotive Parts (as defined in the Agreement). DENSO has 

agreed for a period of 24 months from the date of the entry of this Judgment not to engage in 

conduct that constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (whether 

characterized as price fixing, market allocation, bid rigging, or otherwise) with respect to the sale 

of Automotive Parts. Pursuant to the Agreement, DENSO has agreed to provide specified 

monetary compensation to Plaintiffs, and to cooperate with Plaintiffs in connection with the 

continued prosecution of the Actions.

5. The Court hereby finally approves and confirms the settlement set forth in 

the Agreement and finds that said settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to 

the Settlement Classes pursuant to Rule 23.

6. The Court hereby dismisses on the merits and with prejudice the 

individual and class claims asserted against DENSO, with Plaintiffs and DENSO to bear their 

own costs and attorneys’ fees except as provided herein.

7. All persons and entities who are Releasors are hereby barred and enjoined 

from commencing, prosecuting, or continuing, either directly or indirectly, in an individual or 

representative or derivative capacity, against the Releasees (as defined in the Agreement), in this 

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 3365
or any other jurisdiction, any and all claims, causes of action or lawsuits, which they had, have, 

or in the future may have, arising out of or related to any of the Released Claims as defined in 

the Agreement.

8. The Releasees are hereby and forever released and discharged with respect 

to any and all claims or causes of action which the Releasors had, have, or in the future may 

have, arising out of or related to any of the Released Claims as defined in the Agreement.

9. Neither the Agreement, nor any act performed or document executed 

pursuant to the Agreement, may be deemed or used as an admission of wrongdoing in any civil, 

criminal, administrative, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction.

10. The notice given to the Settlement Classes of the settlement set forth in the 

Agreement and the other matters set forth herein was the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances, including individual notice to all members of the Settlement Classes who could 

be identified through reasonable efforts. Said notice provided due and adequate notice of the 

proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the

Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements 

of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) and the requirements of due process.

11. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the Court 

hereby retains exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) the enforcement of this Judgment; (b) the 

enforcement of the Agreement; (c) any application for distribution of funds, attorneys’ fees, or

reimbursement of costs and expenses made by Plaintiffs’ Counsel; (d) any application for 

incentive awards for the Plaintiffs; and (e) the distribution of the settlement proceeds to the 

members of the Settlement Classes.

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 3366
12. The persons and entities identified on Exhibit “A” hereto have timely and 

validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Classes and, therefore, are excluded. Such 

persons and entities are not included in or bound by this Judgment. Such persons and entities are 

not entitled to any recovery from the settlement proceeds obtained through this settlement. 

Nothing in this Judgment shall be construed as a determination by this Court that such persons 

and entities are members of any of the classes or proposed classes in the In re Automotive Parts 

Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 12-md-02311.

13. In the event that the settlement does not become effective in accordance 

with the terms of the Agreement, then this Judgment shall be rendered null and void and shall be 

vacated, and in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith shall 

be null and void and the parties shall be returned to their respective positions ex ante.

14. The Escrow Account, into which DENSO has deposited assets with a total 

value of U.S. $193,800,000 as the Settlement Amount (as defined in paragraph 23 of the 

Agreement), plus accrued interest thereon and net any expenses incurred as contemplated in 

paragraph 36 of the Agreement, is approved as a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal 

Revenue Code Section 468B and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. The 

Settlement Amount is allocated as follows:

• Automotive Wire Harness Systems: $14,531,801;

• Instrument Panel Clusters: $7,525,762;

• Fuel Senders: $187,823;

• Heater Control Panels: $14,676,679;

• Alternators: $50,449,261;

• Windshield Wiper Systems: $3,310,103;

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 3367
• Radiators: $15,760,989;

• Starters: $9,709,228;

• Ignition Coils: $16,746,824;

• Motor Generators: $142,120;

• HID Ballasts: $1,424,803;

• Inverters: $142,120;

• Fan Motors: $142,120;

• Fuel Injection Systems: $19,392,650;

• Power Window Motors: $142,120;

• Automatic Transmission Fluid Warmers: $1,662,943;

• Valve Timing Control Devices: $4,362,039;

• Air Conditioning Systems: $21,836,133;

• Windshield Washer Systems: $362,978;

• Spark Plugs, Oxygen Sensors and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors: $9,760,366;

• Ceramic Substrates: $1,531,138.

15. The Court finds, pursuant to Rule 54(a) and (b), that this Judgment should 

be entered and further finds that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment, as 

a final judgment, as to the parties to the Agreement.

16. The Court’s certification of the Settlement Classes as provided herein is 

without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant, including DENSO, to contest 

certification of any other class proposed in the In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, 

Master File No. 12-md-02311. The Court’s findings in this Judgment shall have no effect on the 

Court’s ruling on any motion to certify any class in the In re Automotive Parts Antitrust 

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 3368
Litigation, Master File No. 12-md-02311. No party may cite or refer to the Court’s approval of 

the Settlement Classes as persuasive or binding authority with respect to any motion to certify 

any class.

17. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter Judgment forthwith. 

Date: September 25, 2017 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the 

Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF 

participants on September 25, 2017.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 3369
Exhibit A

• Willis Johnson

1905 Flat Shoals Rd. SE

Atlanta, GA 30316

• GEICO Corporation, Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO General 

Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO 

Advantage Insurance Company, GEICO Choice Insurance Company, GEICO Secure 

Insurance Company, GEICO County Mutual Insurance Company, and GEICO Insurance 

Agency, Inc. 

C/O Dan Goldfine

Lewis Roca Rothberger Christie LLP

201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200

Phoenix, AZ 85004

2:15-cv-03003-MOB-MKM Doc # 83 Filed 09/25/17 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 3370