141632

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

____________________________________ 

 : 

In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS : 12-md-02311 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION : Honorable Marianne O. Battani 

____________________________________: 

 : 

In Re: OXYGEN SENSORS CASES : 

____________________________________: 

 : 

THIS RELATES TO: : 

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES : 2:15-cv-03101 

____________________________________: 

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiffs All European Auto Supply, Inc., WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive 

Warehouse, and KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a/ KMB Warehouse Distributors Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), 

individually and on behalf of the proposed class of direct purchasers of Oxygen Sensors (as 

defined below), brings this action against Defendants DENSO Corporation, DENSO 

International America Inc., DENSO Products and Services Americas, Inc. (f/k/a DENSO Sales 

California, Inc.), NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., NGK Spark Plugs 

(U.S.A.) Holding, Inc., NTK Technologies, Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC 

(collectively, “Defendants”), for damages under the antitrust laws of the United States and 

demands a jury trial, and, upon personal information as to 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 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 1 of 27 Pg ID 67
2 

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 “Oxygen Sensors,” as defined in 

more detail below, which are electronic sensors located before and after the catalytic convertor in 

the exhaust system and are used to measure the amount of oxygen in the exhaust. 

3. Defendants are competing manufacturers of Oxygen Sensors 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 Oxygen Sensors. 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 NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. and Robert Bosch GmbH have already 

pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix stabilize, and maintain the 

prices of, Oxygen Sensors (and other automotive parts) in violation of the Sherman Act, and paid 

criminal fines of $52.1 million and $57.8 million, respectively. Defendant DENSO Corporation 

has already pled guilty to participating in similar conspiracies involving various other automotive 

parts. 

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

alleged herein, Plaintiffs, and others like them, paid artificially inflated prices for Oxygen 

Sensors during the period starting at least as early as January 1, 2000 and continuing to the 

present (the “Class Period”). 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 2 of 27 Pg ID 68
3 

6. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of direct purchasers consisting of all persons 

and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased Oxygen Sensors in the United States from 

one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. Plaintiffs bring 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. 

8. 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. 

9. 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 Oxygen Sensors 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. 

10. 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-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 3 of 27 Pg ID 69
4 

PARTIES 

Plaintiffs

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

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

directly from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period and suffered injury as a 

result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

12. Plaintiff WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse (“Plaintiff”) is a 

Rhode Island corporation with its principal place of business located in Providence, Rhode 

Island. WAL, Inc. Plaintiff purchased Oxygen Sensors directly from one or more of the 

Defendants during the Class Period and suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ unlawful 

conduct. 

13. 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 Oxygen Sensors 

directly from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period and suffered injury as a 

result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

Defendants 

The DENSO Defendants 

14. 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 Oxygen Sensors 

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

Period. 

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

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

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 4 of 27 Pg ID 70
5 

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

sold Oxygen Sensors 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. 

16. 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 Oxygen Sensors 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., and 

DENSO Products and Services Americas, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “DENSO” or 

the “DENSO Defendants.” 

The NGK Defendants 

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

place of business in Nagoya, Japan. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. – directly and/or through its 

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

Oxygen Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, 

during the Class Period. 

19. Defendant NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding, Inc. is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in New Castle, Delaware. NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) 

Holding, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., is the holding 

company for NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., which manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 5 of 27 Pg ID 71
6 

Oxygen Sensors 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. 

20. Defendant NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its 

principal place of business in Wixom, Michigan. NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., a wholly 

owned subsidiary of Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

Oxygen Sensors 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 NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding 

Inc., and/or the direction of its parent’s parent, NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. 

21. Defendant NTK Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal 

place of business in Santa Clara, California. NTK Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

Oxygen Sensors 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. 

22. Defendants NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., NGK 

Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding, Inc., and NTK Technologies, Inc. are collectively referred to 

herein as “NGK” or the “NGK Defendants.” 

The Bosch Defendants 

23. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is a German company with its principal place of 

business in Gerlingen, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, 

which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Oxygen Sensors 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 6 of 27 Pg ID 72
7 

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

Period. 

24. Defendant Robert Bosch LLC is a Delaware company with its principal place of 

business in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Robert Bosch LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH., operates factories and distribution facilities in several states, 

including at least Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Robert 

Bosch LLC, directly and/or through its affiliates, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Oxygen 

Sensors 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 Robert Bosch LLC and its 

affiliates were under the control and direction of its parent company. 

25. Defendants Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC are collectively referred 

to herein as “Bosch” or the “Bosch 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 Products and Services Americas, Inc., NGK Spark Plug (U.S.A.) Inc., 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 7 of 27 Pg ID 73
8 

NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding, Inc., NTK Technologies, Inc., and Robert Bosch LLC, were 

authorized, ordered, and condoned by their respective parent companies. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. Product Description: Oxygen Sensors 

30. “Oxygen Sensors” are electronic sensors located before and after the catalytic 

converter in the exhaust system used to measure the amount of oxygen in the exhaust. Oxygen 

Sensors provide signals or data to the automobile’s engine management computer, which then 

adjusts the ratio of air/fuel injected into the engine to compensate for excess air or excess fuel. 

31. One type of Oxygen Sensor is a standard or “narrow-band” oxygen sensor, which 

essentially detects two states: rich or lean. The standard oxygen element is a ceramic thimble 

plated inside and out with electrodes that measure the difference in oxygen between the exhaust 

gas and the external air, then generates an output voltage depending on the difference between 

the two measured values. 

32. Another type of Oxygen Sensor is an air fuel ratio sensor. This is a “wideband” 

oxygen sensor located before the catalytic convertor. An air fuel ratio sensor is paired with a 

special interference circuit so it can produce an electric current corresponding to the actual 

proportion of exhaust gas oxygen concentration enabling more precise control of the air/fuel 

ratio injected into the engine. This “wideband” sensor incorporates an electrochemical gas 

pump. An electronic circuit containing a feedback loop controls the gas pump current so that the 

pump current directly indicates the oxygen content of the exhaust gas. 

33. Oxygen Sensors 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 Oxygen Sensors. 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 8 of 27 Pg ID 74
9 

34. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Oxygen Sensors which 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 Oxygen Sensors Market 

35. The Oxygen Sensors market has certain characteristics that are conducive to a 

price-fixing conspiracy and that make Defendants’ conspiracy more plausible, namely there are 

high barriers to entry and demand for the product is inelastic. 

36. There are substantial barriers to entry in the Oxygen Sensors 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. 

37. Demand for Oxygen Sensors is highly inelastic—i.e., sellers of Oxygen Sensors 

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

substitutes for these products and an Oxygen Sensor is an essential part of modern motor 

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

C. The Request for Quotation Process 

38. When procuring parts such as Oxygen Sensors 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. 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 9 of 27 Pg ID 75
10 

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 

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 Oxygen 

Sensors for that motor vehicle model, the OEM purchases the Oxygen Sensors 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 Oxygen Sensors from the Defendants, such as those 

purchasing Oxygen Sensors to replace parts as they become worn or damaged. Every 

subsequent purchaser who buys Oxygen Sensors 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 Oxygen 

Sensors 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’ Oxygen Sensors 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 Oxygen Sensors by price-fixing, 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 10 of 27 Pg ID 76
11 

rigging bids for, and allocating the market and customers of Oxygen Sensors sold in or into the 

United States. 

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

conversations, emails, and other communications in order to allocate the supply of Oxygen 

Sensors, rig bids quoted to automobile manufacturers for the sale of Oxygen Sensors and to fix, 

stabilize and maintain prices of Oxygen Sensors sold to automobile manufacturers in or into the 

United States, and agreed to rig bids and allocate the supply of those Oxygen Sensors. 

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 Oxygen 

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

Sensors 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 Oxygen Sensors. 

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

Oxygen Sensors 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 Oxygen Sensors. The investigation began in Europe after some European OEMs 

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

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 11 of 27 Pg ID 77
12 

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. 

50. As of the filing of this Complaint, thirty-six (36) companies and thirty (30) 

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.” 

NGK and Bosch Have Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing Oxygen Sensors 

52. On August 19, 2014, the DOJ announced that Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., 

Ltd. agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy regarding Oxygen Sensors and other 

parts from at least as early as January 2000 until at least July 2011. As part of its guilty plea, 

NGK agreed to pay a $52.1 million criminal fine. 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 12 of 27 Pg ID 78
13 

53. Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. pled guilty to participating in a combination 

or conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of automotive parts, including Oxygen 

Sensors, in violation of the Sherman Act. 

54. Its plea agreement covered not only itself but its “Subsidiaries,” including 

Defendants NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding, Inc., and NTK 

Technologies, Inc. Furthermore, it included a promise by the DOJ not to prosecute its 

“[s]ubsidiaries 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 spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, or air fuel ratio sensors.” In 

addition, the NGK plea agreement required cooperation from its subsidiaries (including 

Defendants NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding, Inc., and NTK 

Technologies, Inc.). 

55. According to the Information filed against it, Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., 

Ltd. and its co-conspirators carried out their conspiracy by, among other things: 

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

Germany and Japan 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 certain automobile 

manufacturers; 

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

to allocate the supply of spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air 

fuel ratio sensors sold to automobile manufacturers in the United 

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

basis; 

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

to coordinate price adjustments requested by certain automobile 

manufacturers in Japan and elsewhere; 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 13 of 27 Pg ID 79
14 

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

automobile manufacturers in Japan and elsewhere in accordance with 

the agreements reached; 

(f) selling spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air fuel ratio sensors 

to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

(g) accepting payment for spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air 

fuel ratio sensors sold to certain automobile manufacturers in the 

United State and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

and 

(h) engaging in meetings, conversations, and communications in Japan 

and Germany for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence 

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

56. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH had 

agreed to pay a $57.8 million criminal fine and plead guilty to a one-count Information charging 

it with conspiring to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the 

prices of, (a) spark plugs and oxygen sensors sold from at least as early as January 2000 until at 

least July 2011, and (b) starter motors sold from at least January 2009 until at least June 2010. 

57. 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.” 

58. The Information against Bosch stated that it carried out its conspiracy using 

substantially similar means as those described above with respect to NGK. 

59. Bosch’s plea agreement covered not only itself but also its “related entities” 

including but not limited to Defendant Robert Bosch LLC. Subsidiaries for purposes of the plea 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 14 of 27 Pg ID 80
15 

agreement are entities that Bosch had a greater than 50% ownership interest in as of the date of 

signature of the plea agreement. Furthermore, the plea agreement included a promise by the 

DOJ not to prosecute Bosch’s “related entities 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 oxygen sensors, spark plugs or starter motors.” In addition, 

the Bosch plea agreement required cooperation from its related entities (including Defendant 

Robert Bosch LLC). 

DENSO Has Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing Other Automotive Parts 

60. 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 

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. 

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

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

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

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

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 15 of 27 Pg ID 81
16 

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 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 KFTC Has Fined NGK and DENSO For Price-Fixing Sensors 

62. Moreover, in March 2015, it was announced that the Korea Fair Trade 

Commission (“KFTC”) had fined DENSO, NGK, and certain of their affiliated companies 3.5 

billion won (approximately $3.17 million USD) for forming a price-fixing cartel regarding 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 16 of 27 Pg ID 82
17 

exhaust gas temperature sensors. DENSO avoided further penalties by voluntarily reporting its 

own violations to the KFTC. 

ANTITRUST INJURY 

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

prices for Oxygen Sensors to be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. 

64. As a result, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class paid supra-competitive prices 

for Oxygen Sensors and were deprived of the benefits of a competitive market throughout the 

Class Period. 

65. Therefore, as a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiffs 

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

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

anticompetitive conduct. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

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

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

The Class is defined as follows: 

All individuals and entities who and that purchased Oxygen Sensors in the 

United States directly from one or more Defendants (or their controlled 

subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures) from January 1, 2000 through the 

present. 

67. 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 Oxygen Sensors sold in the 

United States; 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 17 of 27 Pg ID 83
18 

(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; 

(e) Whether the contract, combination, or conspiracy caused Oxygen 

Sensors 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 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members; 

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

concealed the conspiracy’s existence from the Plaintiffs and other 

Class members; 

(h) Whether Plaintiffs 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. 

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

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. 

69. Plaintiffs do 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, Plaintiffs believe that the members of the Class are so numerous and 

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

impracticable. 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 18 of 27 Pg ID 84
19 

70. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiffs directly 

purchased Oxygen Sensors 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 

Plaintiffs is common to the Class. 

71. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class in that 

Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of Oxygen Sensors and have no conflict with any other members 

of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in antitrust, 

class action, and other complex litigation. 

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

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

73. 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. 

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

risk of inconsistent or varying outcomes. 

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

files of Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIMELY 

76. 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 the earliest, August 19, 2014. On that date, the DOJ publicly announced the 

impending guilty pleas of Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. with respect to Oxygen Sensors. 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 19 of 27 Pg ID 85
20 

77. As a result, Plaintiffs 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 August 19, 2014. 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 Oxygen Sensors. 

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

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

Defendants affirmatively and wrongfully concealed their anticompetitive conduct since the Class 

Period began. 

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

Moreover, because Oxygen Sensors are not exempt from antitrust regulation, and because the 

price for Oxygen Sensors was set through an RFQ process that Plaintiffs and members of the 

class had reason to believe was competitive, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class reasonably 

believed they were making Oxygen Sensors purchases in a competitive industry. 

80. In addition, as evidenced by DENSO’s Information, 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. 

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

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

operative facts giving rise to this Complaint prior to August 19, 2014. No information, actual or 

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

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 20 of 27 Pg ID 86
21 

led a reasonably diligent person to investigate whether a conspiracy existed prior to August 19, 

2014. 

82. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs and the Class’s 

claims did not begin to run or were otherwise tolled until August 19, 2014. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 

(Against All Defendants) 

83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

84. 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 Oxygen Sensors sold in or into the United States. 

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

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

86. 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 Oxygen Sensors sold in or into the United States during the Class Period. 

87. 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 Oxygen Sensors to be 

submitted to direct purchasers in the United States; 

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

purchasers in the United States; 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 21 of 27 Pg ID 87
22 

(c) Submitted bids and price quotations to direct purchasers of Oxygen 

Sensors in accordance with the agreements reached; 

(d) Manipulated prices and allocated supply of Oxygen Sensors sold in or 

into the United States; 

(e) Coordinated price adjustments for Oxygen Sensors sold in or into the 

United States; 

(f) Sold Oxygen Sensors in or into the United States at supra-competitive 

prices; and 

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

Plaintiffs and the members of the Class in furtherance of the 

conspiracy. 

88. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Plaintiffs and the 

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

Oxygen Sensors during the Class Period than they would have absent the anticompetitive 

conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment on its behalf and on behalf 

of the Class proposed 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; 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 22 of 27 Pg ID 88
23 

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 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 and costs as provided by law; 

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. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

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

asserted in this Complaint so triable. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 

 /s/ David H. Fink__________ 

David H. Fink (P28235) 

Darryl Bressack (P67820) 

FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 

38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 23 of 27 Pg ID 89
24 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

Telephone: (248) 971-2500 

dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com 

dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com 

Interim Liaison Counsel for the Direct Purchaser 

Plaintiffs

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 

 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 

 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 24 of 27 Pg ID 90
25 

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 

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct 

Purchaser Plaintiffs

 Carl E. Person 

225 E. 36th Street – Suite 3A 

New York, N.Y. 10016-3664 

Telephone: (212) 307- 4444 

carlpers2@gmail.com 

 M. John Dominguez 

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS 

 & TOLL PLLC 

2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204 

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

Telephone: (561) 515-1400 

jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com 

 Solomon B. Cera 

CERA LLP 

595 Market Street, Suite 2300 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-2230 

scera@cerallp.com 

 Linda P. Nussbaum 

Susan R. Schwaiger 

Bart D. Cohen 

NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 

570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 702-7053 

lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 25 of 27 Pg ID 91
26 

 Irwin B. Levin, Esquire 

COHEN & MALAD, LLP 

One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Telephone: (317) 636-6481

ilevin@cohenandmalad.com 

 Aubrey H. Tobin 

Attorney at Law, P.C. 

2140 Walnut Lake Road 

West Bloomfield, MI 48323 

Telephone: (248) 932-3070 

Aubrey@tobinpc.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 

Counsel for Plaintiffs All European Auto Supply, 

Inc., 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-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 26 of 27 Pg ID 92
141632

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 1, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with 

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

counsel of record registered for electronic filing. 

FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 

By: /s/ Darryl Bressack 

David H. Fink (P28235) 

Darryl Bressack (P67820) 

38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 971-2500 

dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com 

2:15-cv-03101-MOB-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 27 of 27 Pg ID 93