J. MANLY PARKS

DIRECT DIAL: +1 215 979 1342

PERSONAL FAX: +1 215 689 3682

E-MAIL: JMParks@duanemorris.com

www.duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

30 SOUTH 17TH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4196 PHONE: +1 215 979 1000 FAX: +1 215 979 1020

ATLANTA

BALTIMORE

WILMINGTON

MIAMI

BOCA RATON

PITTSBURGH

NEWARK

LAS VEGAS

CHERRY HILL

LAKE TAHOE

MYANMAR

OMAN

A GCC REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

OF DUANE MORRIS

MEXICO CITY

ALLIANCE WITH

MIRANDA & ESTAVILLO

SRI LANKA

ALLIANCE WITH

GOWERS INTERNATIONAL

FIRM and AFFILIATE OFFICES

NEW YORK

LONDON

SINGAPORE

PHILADELPHIA

CHICAGO

WASHINGTON, DC

SAN FRANCISCO

SILICON VALLEY

SAN DIEGO

SHANGHAI

BOSTON

HOUSTON

LOS ANGELES

HANOI

HO CHI MINH CITY

January 19, 2017

VIA ECF AND FEDEX

Honorable Marianne O. Battani

United States District Court

Eastern District of Michigan

Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse

231 W. Lafayette Blvd, Rm. 277

Detroit, MI 48226

Re: In re Wire Harnesses, Civil Nos. 14-14451, 14-00107;

In re Occupant Safety Systems, Civil Nos. 15-12050, 15-00607;

In re Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 12-md-02311

Dear Judge Battani:

I enclose a Revised Proposed Final Judgment Entering Dismissal with Prejudice as to 

Certain Defendants in connection with Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs’ (“TEDPs”) 

settlements in the above-captioned cases. This Revised Proposed Order was also electronically 

submitted to the Court as a proposed order via ECF.

A prior version of the proposed Final Judgment Entering Dismissal with Prejudice as to 

Certain Defendants was submitted via ECF on January 18, 2017. However, the prior version did 

not reflect comments that TEDPs received from certain Defendants after it had already been 

submitted.

Accordingly, TEDPs respectfully request that the Court enter the Revised Proposed Final 

Judgment Entering Dismissal with Prejudice as to Certain Defendants enclosed here at its 

convenience. If the Court has any questions regarding this Revised Proposed Final Judgment 

Entering Dismissal with Prejudice as to Certain Defendants, please feel free to contact us.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.738 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.739 Page 2 of 8
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

IN RE: WIRE HARNESSES

IN RE: OCCUPANT SAFETY SYSTEMS

Case No. 2:14-cv-14451-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:14-cv-00107-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM

Case No. 2:15-cv-00607-MOB-MKM

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT DEALER 

CASES

FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

This matter has come before the Court to determine whether there is any cause why

this Court should not enter final judgment approving the respective classwide settlements 

between Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs (“TED Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric 

Wiring Systems, Inc. (incorporating K&S Wiring Systems, Inc.) and Sumitomo Wiring 

Systems (U.S.A.) Inc. (collectively, “Sumitomo”); Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North 

America, Inc. (collectively, “Yazaki”); G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S. Wiring Systems, Inc., and 

G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “G.S. Electech”); DENSO Corporation and 

DENSO International America, Inc. (collectively, “DENSO”); Defendants Tokai Rika Co., 

Ltd. and TRAM, Inc., d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, “Tokai Rika”); Defendants 

LEONI Wiring Systems, Inc. and Leonische Holding Inc. (collectively, “LEONI”); 

Defendants Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. and American Furukawa, Inc. (collectively, 

“Furukawa”); Defendants Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG, and 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.740 Page 3 of 8
2

Autoliv Japan Ltd. (collectively, “Autoliv”); and Defendants ZF TRW Automotive Holdings 

Corp. (formerly known as “TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.”) and TRW Deutschland 

Holding GmbH (collectively, “TRW”) (TRW, together with Sumitomo, Yazaki, G.S. 

Electech, DENSO, Tokai Rika, LEONI, Furukawa, and Autoliv, collectively, the “Settling 

Defendants”) set forth in the respective settlement agreement between TED Plaintiffs and 

each Settling Defendant (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”) approved by this Court 

on December 28, 2016. (No. 2:14-cv-14451 [Doc. 127].) 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 settlements should be approved, and (2) that there

is no just reason for delay of the entry of this final judgment approving the Settlement 

Agreements between TED Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants. Accordingly, the Court directs 

entry of Judgment which shall constitute a final adjudication of this litigation on the merits as 

to the TED Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants. Good cause appearing therefor, it is:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. The definitions of terms set forth in the Settlement Agreements are

incorporated herein as though fully set forth in this Judgment.

2. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Class Counsel, previously appointed by the Court, 

Duane Morris LLP, is appointed as Counsel for the Wire Harness Settlement Class and 

Occupant Safety Systems Settlement Class (together, the “Settlement Classes”). Duane 

Morris LLP has, 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 the Settlement Agreements, over all actions within 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.741 Page 4 of 8
3

this litigation, over the Escrow Accounts identified in Paragraph 13 below, and over the parties 

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

4. Plaintiffs, having filed complaints in the Actions alleging that Settling 

Defendants conspired to rig bids, allocate markets and fix prices for Wire Harness Systems

and/or Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, and Settling Defendants, having denied TED 

Plaintiffs’ allegations and represented they would assert defenses thereto, have entered into the 

Settlement Agreements to settle the Actions with respect to Wire Harness Systems and/or 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the 

distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, to obtain the releases, orders, and

judgment contemplated by the Settlement Agreements, and to put to rest with finality all

claims that have been or could have been asserted against Settling Defendants and/or their 

respective Releasees with respect to Wire Harness Systems and/or Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreements, Settling Defendants have agreed: 

(i) to provide specified monetary compensation to TED Plaintiffs; and (ii) to cooperate with 

TED Plaintiffs in connection with the continued prosecution of the Actions.1

5. The Court finally approved and confirmed the Settlement Agreements and 

found that said settlements are, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement 

Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23 on December 28, 2016. (No. 

2:14-cv-14451 [Doc. 127].)

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

and class claims asserted against Settling Defendants, with TED Plaintiffs and Settling 

 1 DENSO and Sumitomo agreed that they are enjoined for a period of two years from the date of the entry of final 

order and judgment from engaging in any price-fixing, bid-rigging, or market allocation in violation of Section 1 of 

the Sherman Act. Yazaki’s Settlement Agreement does not include any obligation to cooperate with TED Plaintiffs 

in the continued prosecution of the Actions.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.742 Page 5 of 8
4

Defendants 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 Settling Defendants and their respective 

Releasees, in this 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 Settling Defendants’ respective Settlement Agreements.

8. The Settling Defendants and their respective 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 Settling Defendants’ respective Settlement Agreements.

9. Neither the Settlement Agreements, nor any act performed or document

executed pursuant to the Settlement Agreements, 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 settlements set forth in the 

Settlement Agreements 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 settlements set forth in the Settlement Agreements, 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 Final Judgment, the Court retains

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.743 Page 6 of 8
5

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

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

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

for incentive awards for the Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs; and (e) the distribution of 

the settlement proceeds to the members of the Settlement Classes.

12. In the event that the settlements do not become effective in accordance with the 

terms of the Settlement Agreements, then the 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.

13. The Escrow Accounts, into which Settling Defendants have deposited assets as

the Settlement Amounts (as defined in the Settlement Agreements), plus accrued interest

thereon and net any expenses incurred as contemplated in the Settlement Agreements, are 

approved as Qualified Settlement Funds pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 468B

and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. 

14. The Court finds, pursuant to Rule 54(a) and (b), that this Final 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 Settlement Agreements.

15. The Court’s certification of the Settlement Classes as defined in the Settling 

Defendants’ respective Settlement Agreements, pursuant to Rule 23 and as provided herein, is

without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant, including Settling Defendants, 

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 Final 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.744 Page 7 of 8
6

Judgment shall have no effect on the Court’s ruling on any motion to certify any class in the

In re Automotive Parts Antitrust 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.

Date: January 19, 2017 ____________________________

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 27 filed 01/19/17 PageID.745 Page 8 of 8