IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

T&D CORPORATION d/b/a ARCHER 

HOME CENTER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS COMPANY, 

TECUMSEH COMPRESSOR COMPANY, 

TECUMSEH DO BRASIL LTDA, 

TECUMSEH DO BRASIL USA, LLC, 

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, 

WHIRLPOOL, S.A., EMBRACO NORTH 

AMERICA, INC., DANFOSS A/S, DANFOSS 

COMMERCIAL COMPRESSORS LTD., 

DANFOSS, INC., DANFOSS SCROLL 

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DANFOSS 

TURBOCOR COMPRESSORS, INC., 

APPLIANCES COMPONENTS 

COMPANIES, SPA, ACC USA LLC, 

PANASONIC CORPORATION and 

PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH 

AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 Plaintiff T&D Corporation d/b/a Archer Home Center, by its undersigned attorneys, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, files this class action complaint against 

the defendants named herein for treble damages and other relief under the antitrust laws of the 

Untied States and, alleges as follows based upon personal knowledge with respect to its own 

acts, and upon the investigation of counsel, information and belief, and publicly available 

information with respect to all other matters: 

NATURE OF CLAIMS

1. This antitrust class action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all individuals and 

entities who purchased compressors and/or compressor products in the United States directly 

from defendants, their predecessors or their controlled subsidiaries from January 1, 1996 through 

6137.11 – 290299V1 

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 1 of 18
February 16, 2009 (the “Class Period”). “Compressors” as used herein are compressors used in 

refrigeration, air conditioning and cooling applications. “Compressor Products” as used herein 

are Compressors as well as products manufactured, marketed and/or sold by the defendants that 

contain a Compressor manufactured by one of the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that during the 

Class Period, the defendants engaged in a combination and conspiracy, the purpose and effect of 

which was to artificially fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of Compressor Products sold in 

the United States. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff brings this action seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, and the costs 

of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for injuries sustained by Plaintiff and 

members of the class as a result of defendants’ violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1, as alleged in this Complaint. 

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a) and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 22, and 26. 

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 22, and 26 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because at least one of the defendants resided, transacted 

business, and was found, or had agents in this district during the Class Period; and because a 

substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce described herein has been 

carried out in this district. 

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff T & D Corporation is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of 

business in Adel, Iowa. Plaintiff purchased Compressor Products directly from one or more 

defendants during the Class Period, and was damaged as a result of defendants’ unlawful 

006137-11 290299 V1 2

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 2 of 18
conduct. The prices Plaintiff paid for the Compressor Products sold by defendants were, as a 

result of the conspiracy alleged herein, higher than they otherwise would have been, and Plaintiff 

was injured in its business and property by reason of the antitrust violations alleged herein. 

6. Defendant Tecumseh Products Company (“Tecumseh”) is a Michigan corporation 

with its principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. During the Class Period, defendant 

Tecumseh, by itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor 

Products in this district and the United States. Tecumseh is one of the world’s largest producers 

of Compressor Products. Its products are used in residential and commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units and residential and 

commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps. Tecumseh offers its products to 

original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket distributors through sales staff and 

independent sales representatives in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East 

and Asia. 

7. Defendant Tecumseh Compressor Company is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Tecumseh Compressor Company is a 

wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Tecumseh Products Company. Defendant Tecumseh 

Compressor Company, by itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or sold 

Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class Period. 

8. Defendant Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda (“Tecumseh Brasil”) is a Brazilian 

corporation with its principal place of business in Sao Carlos, Brazil. Tecumseh Brasil is 

wholly-owned by defendant Tecumseh Products Company. Defendant Tecumseh Brasil, by 

itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in 

006137-11 290299 V1 3

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 3 of 18
this district and the United States during the Class Period. Tecumseh Brasil is Tecumseh’s 

largest foreign manufacturing source. 

9. Defendant Tecumseh do Brasil USA, LLC (“Tecumseh Brasil USA”) is a 

Delaware limited liability company, which is wholly-owned by defendant Tecumseh Brasil. 

Defendant Tecumseh Brasil USA, by itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class Period. 

10. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) is a Delaware corporation with 

its principal place of business in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Whirlpool’s compressor business 

has sales of $1.5 billion annually. In 2008, sales of compressors represented approximately 6% 

of Whirlpool’s global net sales. Defendant Whirlpool, by itself or through its subsidiaries, 

manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States 

during the Class Period. 

11. Defendant Whirlpool S.A. f/k/a Embraco S.A. (“Whirlpool S.A.”) is a Brazilian 

corporation with its principal place of business in Joinville, Brazil. Defendant Whirlpool S.A. is 

a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Whirlpool and has been since approximately 1996. 

Prior to May 2006, Whirlpool S.A. operated under the name Embraco S.A. Defendant Whirlpool 

S.A. manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United 

States during the Class Period. According to its website, defendant Whirlpool S.A. has been 

selling Compressor Products that it manufacturers in Brazil in the United States since at least 

1978. 

12. Defendant Embraco North America, Inc. (“Embraco NA”) is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business at Suwanee, Georgia. Defendant Embraco NA is 

a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Whirlpool, S.A. which in turn is wholly-owned by 

006137-11 290299 V1 4

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 4 of 18
defendant Whirlpool. Defendant Embraco NA marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in 

this district and the United States during the Class Period. According to Whirlpool S.A.’s 

website, Embraco NA is responsible, inter alia, for selling Whirlpool S.A.’s products in North 

America. 

13. Defendant Danfoss A/S is a Danish corporation headquartered in Nordborg, 

Denmark. Defendant Danfoss A/S, by itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class Period 

through its Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Division. 

14. Defendant Danfoss Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business in Baltimore, Maryland. Defendant Danfoss Inc. is an indirectly owned subsidiary of 

defendant Danfoss A/S. Defendant Danfoss Inc. manufactured, marketed and/or sold 

Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class Period. 

15. Defendant Danfoss Commercial Compressors, Ltd. is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business at Lawrenceville, Georgia. Defendant Danfoss Commercial 

Compressors, Ltd. either directly or indirectly, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant 

Danfoss A/S. Defendant Danfoss Commercial Compressors, Ltd. by itself or through its 

subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the 

United States during the Class Period. 

16. Defendant Danfoss Scroll Technologies, LLC f/k/a Scroll Technologies, LLC is a 

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. 

Defendant Danfoss Scroll Technologies, LLC, either directly or indirectly, is wholly-owned by 

defendant Danfoss A/S. Defendant Danfoss Scroll Technologies, LLC, manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class Period. 

006137-11 290299 V1 5

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 5 of 18
17. Defendant Danfoss Turbocor Compressors, Inc. (“Danfoss Turbocor”) is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tallahassee, Florida. Defendant 

Danfoss Turbocor, either directly or indirectly, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant 

Danfoss A/S. Defendant Danfoss Turbocor manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor 

Products in this district and the United States during the Class Period. 

18. Defendant Appliances Components Companies SpA (“ACC”) is an Italian 

corporation with its principal place of business located in Pordenone, Italy. Defendant ACC 

manufactures its Compressor Products in Italy, Austria and China. Defendant ACC, 

manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States 

during the Class Period. 

19. Defendant ACC, USA, LLC (“ACC USA”) is a limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Madison, Alabama, which is wholly-owned by defendant ACC. 

Defendant ACC USA manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district 

and the United States during the Class Period. 

20. Defendant Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(“Panasonic”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. 

During the Class Period, defendant Panasonic, by itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, 

marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class 

Period. 

21. Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America is a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Panasonic Corporation. Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America manufactured, 

006137-11 290299 V1 6

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 6 of 18
marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this district and the United States during the Class 

Period. 

22. Whenever this complaint refers to any act, deed or transaction of any corporation 

or limited liability company, the allegation means that the corporation or limited liability 

company engaged in the act, deed or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, 

employees, shareholders or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, 

direction, control or transaction of the business or affairs of the corporation or limited liability 

company. 

CO-CONSPIRATORS

23. Various other persons, firms and corporations, not named as defendants in this 

Complaint, have participated as co-conspirators with defendants in the violations alleged herein, 

and have aided, abetted and performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the 

conspiracy. 

INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE

29. During the Class Period, defendants produced, manufactured, distributed and sold 

Compressor Products through the means of interstate commerce in a continuous and 

uninterrupted flow to customers located throughout the United States. Plaintiff and other 

members of the class located throughout the United States purchased Compressor Products 

directly from defendants and their co-conspirators, who received millions of dollars from such 

interstate trade and commerce. 

30. Among other unreasonable restraints on interstate trade and commerce, 

defendants’ combination and conspiracy artificially raised the price of Compressor Products and 

006137-11 290299 V1 7

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 7 of 18
deprived Plaintiff and the class of the benefits of free and open competition in the market for 

Compressor Products throughout the United States. 

THE COMPRESSOR MARKET AND INDUSTRY

31. A Compressor is a device that compresses a refrigerant gas. Compressors are part 

of the system that creates the cold air that keeps food fresh or frozen by compressing cooling 

fluid. When the gas is later permitted to expand, it absorbs and transfers heat, producing a 

cooling effect, which forms the basis for a wide variety of refrigeration and air conditioning 

products. 

32. Typically, Compressors are used in residential and commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning unites, central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

commercial vending machines and water coolers. 

33. Compressors are called often “hermetic” Compressors because the electric motor 

and compression mechanism do not work in the normal atmosphere, but run sealed within the 

atmosphere of the refrigerant vapor. 

34. Typically, there are no serviceable parts inside a compressor. Therefore, once a 

compressor fails, the only option is to replace it. 

35. Compressors are homogenous commodity products. One defendant’s Compressor 

can be used in place of another defendant’s Compressor in the same application. Compressors 

supplied by one producer may be readily substituted for Compressors supplied by any other 

supplier. Because Compressors are homogenous commodity products, purchasers of 

Compressor Products make purchase decisions based primarily on price. However, due to 

defendants’ anticompetitive conduct as alleged herein, defendants have been able to fix, raise, 

maintain and stabilize the price of Compressor Products at artificially high levels. 

006137-11 290299 V1 8

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 8 of 18
36. Demand for Compressors is highly inelastic. Thus, producers of Compressors 

have been able to raise their prices without losing sales revenues. There are also no product 

substitutes for Compressors. Demand inelasticity is a market condition which facilitates the 

existence of an anti-competitive conspiracy, and facilitated the existence of the conspiracy 

alleged herein. 

37. Tight credit and downturn in the global economy have put a damper on appliance 

sales. According to a Dow Jones Newswires report, industry observers say many Compressor 

manufacturers have been reluctant to slash their prices to generate order volume during the 

downturn. 

38. There are substantial barriers to entry into the Compressors’ market. A new 

entrant into the business would have to incur multimillion dollar costs, including manufacturing 

plant and equipment, energy, transportation, distribution infrastructure, skilled labor and 

long-standing customer relationships. With such barriers, those few firms who have available 

resources and significant start-up capital to enter the market and benefit from economies of scale 

are able to reduce their average cost by producing more output. The firm existing in the market 

have the motivation to keep other firms out in order to keep their share up, and to also collude in 

order to keep prices up. 

39. The market for Compressors is highly concentrated. A small number of products 

control a major share of the Compressor market. For example, defendant Whirlpool and its 

subsidiaries are estimated to control as much as 25% of the global market for refrigerator 

compressors and 30% of the market share in Europe. Collectively, defendants named herein 

control a substantial percentage of the Compressor market. This concentration makes the 

Compressor market conducive to price-fixing. 

006137-11 290299 V1 9

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 9 of 18
GOVERNMENT ANTITRUST INVESTIGATIONS

40. In mid-February, the media reported that a number of Compressor manufacturers 

were under investigation for potential antitrust violations. A joint operation, known as 

“Operation Degree Zero,” was launched by the United States Department of Justice, the 

Brazilian authorities and the European Commission to investigate an alleged cartel among the 

manufacturers of Compressors. 

41. According to sources from the Brazilian government, searches and seizures made 

in connection with Operation Degree Zero, “yielded remarkable evidence” of the cartel, 

including the exchange of sensitive information to eliminate competition. 

42. On or about February 17, 2009, the media reported that Brazilian competition 

authorities raided the offices of Whirlpool S.A. in connection with its potential involvement in a 

global price fixing and market allocation conspiracy in the market for Compressor Products. 

News articles reported that the Brazilian authorities seized bags of computers and laptops. 

Following that raid, the Brazilian police, which helped conduct the raid, stated, “the initial 

investigation shows that the companies involved had agreed, through their managers, to fix 

prices and also exchanged commercially sensitive information, harming free competition and 

consumers.” Moreover, the Brazilian policy noted that the companies involved in the conspiracy 

had been exchanging confidential information for more than 12 years. Finally, it was reported 

that the investigation began near the end of 2008 when one of the companies advised authorities 

of the cartel in exchange for administrative and criminal immunity. 

43. The Brazilian press reports that 2008 losses from the cartelization of hermetic 

Compressors could range from BRL68 million to BRL125 million, or US$230 million to 

US$425 million. According to Ana Paula Martinez, Director of Brazil’s Department of 

006137-11 290299 V1 10

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 10 of 18
44. On February 18, 2009, the European Commission (“EC”), the European Union’s 

antitrust watchdog, revealed in a press release that on February 17, 2009, the EC carried out 

unannounced inspections at the premises of Compressor makers in several member states for 

possible breach of antitrust rules, which prohibit practices such as price fixing and customer 

allocation. The inspections were carried out in several EU member states including Denmark, 

Italy and Germany. 

45. On February 19, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) 

confirmed that it is investigating possible antitrust violations in the multibillion-dollar 

refrigeration compressor industry. DOJ spokeswoman Gina Talamona confirmed that the DOJ is 

“coordinating with other foreign competition authorities.” Additionally, the DOJ confirmed the 

existence of a grand jury and that grand jury subpoenas had been issued to several defendants. 

46. Whirlpool, on February 19, 2009 in an SEC filing, stated “[o]n February 17, 2009, 

we received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requesting documents 

relating to an antitrust investigation of the global compressor industry. Whirlpool subsidiaries in 

Brazil and Italy were visited on the same day by competition authorities seeking similar 

information.” 

47. Defendant Tecumseh also disclosed that it had received subpoenas from antitrust 

authorities in the U.S. and Brazil regarding an investigation into possible price fixing in the 

Compressor Products market. 

006137-11 290299 V1 11

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 11 of 18
48. Danfoss A/S stated that offices in the United States and Europe were raided by 

antitrust regulators as part of an investigation into possible price-fixing in the Compressor 

Product market. 

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

49. Throughout the Class Period, defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently 

concealed their unlawful conspiracy, combination and contracts form Plaintiff and members of 

the class. 

50. Plaintiff and other members of the class had no knowledge of defendants’ 

unlawful self-concealing conspiracy and could not have discovered the contract, combination or 

conspiracy at an earlier date by the exercise of due diligence because of the deceptive practices 

and secrecy techniques employed by defendants to avoid detection of, and to fraudulently 

conceal, their contract, combination or conspiracy. 

51. Because the contract, combination or conspiracy was kept secret by defendants, 

Plaintiff and other class members, despite exercising due diligence, were unaware that prices of 

Compressor Products were secretly agreed upon. 

52. As a result of defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ fraudulent concealment of 

their conspiracy, the applicable statute of limitations governing Plaintiff’s right of action has 

been tolled. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

53. Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The class is defined 

as: 

All individuals or entities (excluding governmental entities, 

Defendants, their subsidiaries and any co-conspirators) who 

006137-11 290299 V1 12

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 12 of 18
purchased Compressor products in the United States directly from 

any of the defendants or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliated 

thereof at any time during the period from January 1, 1996 through 

February 16, 2009. 

54. The members of the class are so numerous and geographically dispersed across 

the country that joinder of all members of the class would be impracticable. Due to the nature of 

the claims asserted here, Plaintiff believes that members of the class are located throughout the 

United States. The exact number of class members is unknown by Plaintiff at this time, but 

Plaintiff believes that the class is in the thousands and their identities can only be discovered 

through inspection of defendants’ records, which are or should be readily available. 

55. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the members of the class because Plaintiff and all 

members of the class were damaged by the same wrongful conduct of defendants alleged herein. 

Plaintiff and the class purchased Compressor Products at artificially maintained, non-competitive 

prices established by the actions of defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators in connection 

with the wrongful conduct alleged herein. 

56. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests 

of Plaintiff are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the class. In addition, Plaintiff 

is represented by counsel who are experienced and competent in the prosecution of complex 

class action antitrust litigation. 

57. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over 

questions that may affect only individual members, if any, in that defendants have acted on 

grounds generally applicable to the entire class. Among the questions of law and fact common 

to the class are: 

006137-11 290299 V1 13

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 13 of 18
a. Whether defendants conspired with the purpose and effect of fixing prices, 

allocating markets and committing other anticompetitive practices designed to 

unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of Compressor Products; 

b. Whether defendants’ conduct violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; 

c. The existence, duration and illegality of the contract, combination or conspiracy 

alleged in this Complaint; 

d. Whether defendants took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, combination or 

conspiracy alleged herein; 

e. The effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by Plaintiff and members of 

the class and the appropriate type and/or measure of damages; and 

f. Whether Plaintiff and the class are entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. 

58. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives, if any, for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large 

number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum 

simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that 

numerous individual actions would engender. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication 

of relatively small claims by certain class members, who could not otherwise afford to 

individually litigate an antitrust claim against large corporate defendants. 

59. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the 

class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. 

60. The class is readily definable and is one for which records likely exist in the files 

of defendants and their co-conspirators. 

006137-11 290299 V1 14

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 14 of 18
61. Plaintiff is now aware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the 

management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT

62. Beginning at least as early as January 1, 1996, and continuing thereafter to 

February 16, 2009, defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in an unlawful contract, 

combination or conspiracy with the purpose and effect of fixing prices, allocating markets and 

committing other anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or 

stabilize the prices of Compressor Products in a per se violation or unreasonable restraint of 

trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 

63. The conspiracy alleged herein consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding 

and concert of action by defendants and their co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which 

were to raise, fix or maintain the prices of Compressor Products sold in the United States and 

worldwide at artificially high and non-competitive levels. 

64. In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, upon information and belief, each of 

the defendants and their co-conspirators have committed overt acts including, inter alia: 

a. Meeting or otherwise communicating to discuss the prices of Compressor 

Products sold in the United States and worldwide; 

b. Agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and otherwise to fix, increase, maintain 

or stabilize prices of Compressor Products sold in the United States and 

worldwide; 

c. Meeting or otherwise communicating with co-conspirators to keep the existence 

of the conspiracy unknown so as to foster the illegal anticompetitive prices; 

006137-11 290299 V1 15

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 15 of 18
d. Refraining from competition by refusing to offer Compressor Products at prices 

below the agreed upon fixed price; and 

e. Selling Compressor Products at the agreed upon prices. 

65. The unlawful contact, combination or conspiracy alleged above had, inter alia, 

the following effects: 

a. Prices charged by defendants and their co-conspirators to Plaintiff and the 

members of the class for Compressor Products were maintained at artificially high 

and non-competitive levels; and 

b. Plaintiff and other members of the Class were required to pay more for 

Compressor Products than they would have paid in a competitive marketplace, 

unfettered by defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ collusive and unlawful 

price-fixing. 

66. During and throughout the Class Period, Plaintiff and members of the class 

directly purchased Compressor Products in the United States. 

67. Plaintiff and the other class members paid more for Compressor Products that 

they purchased than they would have paid under conditions of free and open competition. 

68. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal combination, contract or conspiracy 

alleged herein, Plaintiff and the members of the class were injured and financially damaged in 

their businesses and property in amounts that are not presently determinable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that: 

006137-11 290299 V1 16

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 16 of 18
a. The Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action 

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Plaintiff be appointed class 

representative, and that Plaintiff’s counsel be appointed as counsel for the class; 

b. The contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance 

thereof by defendants and their co-conspirators, be adjudged to have been in violation of 

Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and Sections 4 and 16 of the 

Clayton Act, 15 U.S. C §§ 15 and 26; 

c. Plaintiff and the class recover compensatory damages, as provided by law, 

determined to have been sustained by each of them, and that joint and several judgments 

in favor of Plaintiff and the class, respectively, be entered against defendants, in an 

amount to be trebled in accordance with antitrust laws, and each of them; 

d. Plaintiff and the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and accountant’s fees, as provided by law; 

e. Plaintiff and the class be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment 

interest at the highest legal rate to the extent provided by law; 

f. Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the 

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, in any 

manner, continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract, combination or conspiracy 

alleged herein, or from engaging in any other contract, combination or conspiracy having 

similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or 

device having a similar purpose or effect; and 

006137-11 290299 V1 17

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 17 of 18
006137-11 290299 V1 18

g. Plaintiff and the class be granted such other, further relief as the nature of 

the case may require or as may seem just and proper to this Court under the 

circumstances. 

JURY DEMAND

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) and otherwise, Plaintiff respectfully 

demands a trial by jury. 

DATED: March 13, 2009 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Andrew Volk _

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Steve W. Berman, Esq. 

Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq. 

Andrew Volk, Esq. 

1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Phone: (206) 623-7292 

Fax: (206) 623-0594 

E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

 tony@hbsslaw.com

 andrew@hbsslaw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. 

820 North Blvd., Suite B 

Oak Park, IL 60301 

Phone: (708)776-5604 

Fax: (708) 776-5601 

E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

HUDSON, MALLANEY & SHINDLER, P.C. 

J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. 

5015 Grand Ridge Dr. 

Suite 100 

West Des Moines, IA 50265 

Phone: (515) 223-4567 

Fax: (515) 223-8887 

E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

Case 2:09-cv-10938-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 18 of 18