1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Nathan Levi Esquerra,

18210 North 56 Lane 

Glendale, AZ 85308, 

 

on behalf of himself and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

APPLIANCES COMPONENTS 

COMPANIES, SPA 

Consorziale 13 - loc. Comina 

33170 Pordenone, Italy; 

ACC USA LLC 

113 Jetplex Circle, Suite B1 

Madison, AL 35758; 

DANFOSS A/S 

Nordborgvej 81 

6430 Nordborg, Denmark;

DANFOSS, INC. 

7941 Corporate Drive 

Baltimore, MD 21236;

DANFOSS COMMERCIAL 

COMPRESSORS, LTD. 

1775 Mac Leod Drive 

Lawrenceville, GA 30043; 

DANFOSS SCROLL 

TECHNOLOGIES LLC. 

1 Scroll Drive 

Arkadelphia, AR 71923; 

DANFOSS TURBOCOR 

COMPRESSORS, INC. 

1769 E. Paul Dirac Drive 

Tallahassee, FL 32310; 

CIVIL ACTION NO.__________

COMPLAINT 

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 1 of 38
2 

PANASONIC CORPORATION

1006 Kadoma 

Kadoma City, Osaka, Japan; 

PANASONIC CORPORATION OF 

NORTH AMERICA 

1 Panasonic Way 

Secaucus, NJ 07094; 

TECUMSEH COMPRESSOR 

COMPANY 

1136 Oak Valley Drive 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104; 

TECUMSEH DO BRASIL, LTDA

Rua Cel. Jose Augusto 

De Oliveira Sales, 478 

Vl. Izabel, San Carlos, 13565-900, Brasil;

TECUMSEH DO BRASIL USA, LLC

100 E Patterson St 

Tecumseh, MI 49286;

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS CO.

1136 Oak Valley Drive 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104;

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

2000 N. M-63 

Benton Harbor, MI 49022; 

WHIRLPOOL S.A. 

Av. Das Nacoes Unidas 12995, 32 Andar 

Sao Paulo, 04578-000, Brazil; and 

EMBRACO NORTH 

AMERICA, INC. 

2800 Vista Ridge Drive NE 

Suwanee, GA 30024, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff Nathan Levi Esquerra, by and through his undersigned attorneys, bring 

this action against the above-named manufacturers (the “Defendants”) pursuant to the 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 2 of 38
3 

antitrust and consumer protection laws set forth below on behalf of themselves and all 

other indirect purchasers in the Classes set forth below for injunctive relief, treble 

damages, and/or restitution, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and demand a jury trial. 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises out of a long-standing conspiracy extending from at 

least January 1, 1996 through the present (“Class Period”) in which Defendants and their 

co-conspirators agreed to, and in fact did, artificially fix, maintain, and stabilize the 

prices of and allocate customers and markets for compressors (“Compressors” as more 

fully defined herein) and products containing Compressors (“Compressor Products”) sold 

in the United States and each of its individual states and territories. Compressor Products 

include but are not limited to: commercial and residential refrigeration applications such 

as freezers, dehumidifiers, display cases, water fountains, ice makers, vending machines; 

household refrigerators and freezers; as well as commercial and residential unitary central 

air conditioning systems and room air conditioners. 

2. Compressors essentially create cold air by “compressing” refrigerant gases 

which later expand thereby drawing heat from the surroundings. Compressors are the 

core of Compressor Products such as domestic and commercial refrigeration products and 

air-conditioning units – indeed, Compressor Products are essentially useless without 

Compressors. Compressors and Compressor Products are commodities. 

3. Compressors are extremely common and important devices. The U.S. 

Census estimated U.S. Compressor sales to be almost $2.5 billion dollars in 2002 alone. 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 3 of 38
4 

Multiplied over the course of the Class Period, the total U.S. Compressor sales affected 

by Defendant’s unlawful conspiracy potentially amounts to $30 billion. 

4. Despite being competitors in the manufacture of Compressors and 

Compressor Products, Defendants have actively and in concert conspired to artificially 

inflate and manipulate the prices and markets for Compressors and Compressor Products. 

Defendants’ illicit conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy has included the exchange of 

sensitive information, participation in meetings in which pricing and supply was 

discussed and agreed to, allocation of markets, and monitoring and enforcement of their 

unlawful agreement. Representing over 90% of the global market for Compressors and 

Compressor Products, the cartel was able to manipulate prices and thus, successful in 

effectuation of its conspiracy, thereby injuring Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated 

indirect purchasers of Compressors and Compressor Products. 

5. Defendants’ conspiracy and acts in furtherance thereof are evidenced by a 

number of facts, including, inter alia, a product and industry highly conducive to 

collusion as well as pricing trends unlikely in a competitive market. Most importantly 

however, one Defendant has openly admitted to the existence of this conspiracy and its 

role in it, and has applied for amnesty in multiple jurisdictions. Antitrust authorities in 

the United States, the European Union, and Brazil have begun investigations into the 

Compressor industry, and several Defendants have admitted to being subpoenaed in the 

United States and/or having their offices raided or “visited” by the authorities in Europe 

and Brazil. The Brazilian antitrust regulators recently stated that the conspiracy and acts 

in furtherance alleged herein lasted twelve years. 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 4 of 38
5 

6. Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy caused significant, foreseeable, and 

traceable harm to Plaintiff and members of the Classes. As set forth below, increases in 

the cost of Compressors, which accounts for a significant percentage of the total cost for 

Compressor Products such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers, inflated the 

prices paid by indirect purchasers of Compressors and Compressor Products such as 

Plaintiffs and Class members. Many Defendants not only manufacture Compressors, but 

also Compressor Products, giving them substantial power to control pricing at every level 

in the chains of distribution. 

7. Demand for Compressors is inelastic, because there are no reasonable 

substitutes. Additionally, Compressors are effectively commodity products and 

producers compete largely on price. Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy caused price 

increases in not only the prices of Compressors, but also an artificial increase in the price 

of Compressor Products, and thus injuring Plaintiff and members of the Classes because 

they paid more for Compressors and Compressor Products than they would have in a 

competitive market. 

8. The actions of the Compressor cartel were kept secret. The Defendants 

worked to ensure that the conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of compressors 

remained concealed from the market, and thus the existence and effect of the conspiracy 

were only recently discovered when Defendant Tecumseh came forward in exchange for 

leniency from antitrust authorities. Tecumseh’s revelation spawned the U.S., EC, and 

Brazilian investigations referenced above. 

9. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and other indirect 

purchasers of Compressors and Compressor Products in the Classes set forth below. As 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 5 of 38
6 

an intended result of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy, prices for Compressors and 

Compressor Products in the United States were higher than competitive levels. Plaintiff 

and members of the proposed Classes have been injured in that they were forced to pay 

supra-competitive prices for Compressors and/or Compressor Products during the Class 

Period. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims raised in 

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26. 

11. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction of the pendant 

state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

12. Additionally, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over all claims raised in 

this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b), in that this is a class action in which the 

matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, 

and in which some members of the proposed classes are citizens of a state different from 

some Defendants. 

13. Venue is proper pursuant to Sections 4 and 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 15, 16, 22 and 26, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because during the Class 

Period the Defendants resided, transacted business, were found, and/or had agents in this 

District, and because a substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce 

described herein is and has been carried out in this District. 

14. Each Defendant has: (a) transacted business in the United States including 

in this District and Class Jurisdictions; (b) directly or indirectly sold or marketed 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 6 of 38
7 

substantial quantities of Compressors and/or Compressor Products throughout the United 

States including in this District and Class Jurisdictions; (c) had substantial aggregate 

contacts with the United States as a whole including in this District and Class 

Jurisdictions; and/or (d) was engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy that was 

directed at, and had the intended effect of causing injury to, persons and entities residing 

in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including in this District 

and Class Jurisdictions. 

INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE

15. During the Class Period, there has been a continuous and uninterrupted 

flow of transactions and shipments of Compressors and Compressor Products in interstate 

commerce throughout the United States by Defendants.

16. The unlawful activities of Defendants and their Co-Conspirators have 

been within the flow of, and have had a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable 

effect on interstate commerce throughout the United States.

PARTIES

17. Plaintiff Nathan Levi Esquerra is a resident of Glendale, Arizona. During 

the Class Period, Plaintiff Esquerra indirectly purchased Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products from one or more of the Defendants. Plaintiff Esquera paid a higher price than 

he would have but for the violations alleged herein and was thereby injured as a result of 

Defendants’ illegal conduct. 

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

Italian corporation with its principal place of business in Pordenone, Italy. During the 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 7 of 38
8 

Class Period, ACC SPA marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or 

Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

19. Defendant ACC USA, LLC (“ACC USA”) is a Delaware limited liability 

company headquartered in Madison, Alabama. ACC USA is a wholly owned subsidiary 

of Defendant ACC SPA. During the Class Period, ACC USA marketed, sold and/or 

distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

20. Defendants ACC SPA and ACC USA are herein collectively referred to as 

“ACC”. 

21. Defendant Danfoss A/S is a Danish corporation headquartered in 

Nordborg, Denmark. During the Class Period, Danfoss A/S marketed, sold and/or 

distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

22. Defendant Danfoss, Inc., also known as Danfoss North America, is a 

Delaware corporation headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. Defendant Danfoss, Inc. is 

a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Danfoss A/S. During the Class Period, Danfoss 

Inc. marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to 

customers in the United States. 

23. Defendant Danfoss Commercial Compressors, Ltd. (“Danfoss CC”) is a 

Delaware corporation headquartered in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Defendant Danfoss CC 

is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Danfoss A/S. During the Class Period, 

Danfoss CC marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products 

to customers in the United States. 

24. Defendant Danfoss Scroll Technologies, LLC f/k/a Scroll Technologies, 

LLC, (“Danfoss ST”) is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 8 of 38
9 

Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Danfoss ST is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Danfoss 

A/S. During the Class Period, Danfoss ST marketed, sold and/or distributed 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

25. Defendant Danfoss Turbocor Compressors, Inc. (“Danfoss Turbocor”) is a 

Delaware corporation headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. Defendant Danfoss 

Turbocor is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Danfoss A/S. During the Class 

Period, Danfoss Turbocor marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or 

Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

26. Defendants Danfoss A/S, Danfoss Inc., Danfoss CC, Danfoss ST, Danfoss 

Turbocor, and Danfoss Compressor, LLC are herein collectively referred to as “Danfoss”. 

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

Ltd., (“Panasonic Corp.”) is a Japanese corporation headquartered in Osaka, Japan. 

During the Class Period, Panasonic Corp. marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors 

and/or Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

28. Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Panasonic NA”) is 

a Delaware corporation headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey. Panasonic NA is a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic Corp. During the Class Period, Panasonic NA 

marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to customers 

in the United States. 

29. Defendants Panasonic Corp. and Panasonic NA are herein collectively 

referred to as “Panasonic”. 

30. Defendant Tecumseh Compressor Company is a Delaware corporation 

headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. During the Class Period, Tecumseh Compressor 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 9 of 38
10 

Company marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to 

customers in the United States. 

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

corporation headquartered in Sao Carlos, Brazil. During the Class Period, Tecumseh 

Brasil marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to 

customers in the United States. 

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

Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Tecumseh, Michigan. Tecumseh 

Brasil USA is wholly owned by Defendant Tecumseh Brasil. During the Class Period, 

Tecumseh do Brasil USA marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or 

Compressor Products to customers in the United States. 

33. Defendant Tecumseh Products Co. (“Tecumseh Products”) is a Michigan 

corporation headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. During the Class Period, Tecumseh 

Products marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to 

customers in the United States. 

34. Defendants Tecumseh Products, Tecumseh Compressor Company, 

Tecumseh Brasil, and Tecumseh Brasil USA are herein collectively referred to as 

“Tecumseh”. 

35. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation is a Delaware corporation 

headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan. During the Class Period, Whirlpool 

marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to customers 

in the United States. 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 10 of 38
11 

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

Brazilian corporation headquartered in Joinville, Brazil. During the Class Period, 

Whirlpool S.A. marketed, sold and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products to customers in the United States. 

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

corporation headquartered in Suwanee, Georgia. Embraco NA is a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Whirlpool S.A. During the Class Period, Embraco NA marketed, sold 

and/or distributed Compressors and/or Compressor Products to customers in the United 

States. 

38. Defendants Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool S.A., and Embraco NA are 

herein collectively referred to as “Whirlpool”. 

39. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act, deed or 

transaction of any corporation or limited liability company or other entity, 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. 

40. Defendants have and continue to act as each other’s agents or joint 

venturers with respect their conspiracy, and any Defendant that is a subsidiary of a 

foreign parent acted as its parent company’s agent and/or alter ego for its parents’ U.S. 

sales of Compressors and/or Compressor products. 

CO-CONSPIRATORS

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 11 of 38
12 

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

this complaint, (“Co-Conspirators”) have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants 

in the violations alleged herein, and performed acts and made statements in furtherance of 

the conspiracy. 

42. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, 

representative, or otherwise of Co-Conspirators are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. 

Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of CoConspirators when they become known to them. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

45. Plaintiff brings this action on their own behalf and as a class action 

pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 

behalf of the following classes or subclasses (hereinafter collectively referred to as 

“Classes” unless otherwise noted): 

(a) Nationwide Class: All persons and entities that indirectly purchased 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products from one or more of the 

Defendants in the United States at any time during the Class Period. 

Excluded from the Nationwide Class are all Defendants and their parent 

companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; other co-conspirators; federal or 

state government entities, instrumentalities, subdivisions, or agencies; 

persons who purchased Compressors and/or Compressor Products 

directly; and persons who purchased Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products for resale. 

(b) State-Specific Classes: All persons and entities that indirectly purchased 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products from one or more of the 

Defendants in the states or territories of Arizona, Arkansas, California, the 

District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin (the “Class Jurisdictions”) at any time during the Class Period. 

Excluded from the State-Specific Classes are all Defendants and their 

parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; other co-conspirators; 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 12 of 38
13 

federal or state government entities, instrumentalities, subdivisions, or 

agencies; persons who purchased Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products directly; and persons who purchased Compressors and/or 

Compressor Products for resale. 

46. Members of these Classes, indirect purchasers of Compressors and/or 

Compressor products including, inter alia, refrigerators and/or freezers, are so numerous 

and geographically dispersed that joinder of all Class members would be impracticable. 

47. Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Classes at the present time. 

However, due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved including the sales of 

Compressors and Compressor Products such as refrigerators and freezers, Plaintiff 

believes there to be at least thousands of Class members in each Class. 

48. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes. 

The claims arise from the same course of conduct and are based on the same legal 

theories. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, because 

Plaintiff and all members of the Classes are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful 

conduct in that they paid artificially inflated prices for products purchased indirectly from 

Defendants or their Co-Conspirators. 

49. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. 

Plaintiff’s interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the members of 

the Classes. 

50. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in class action and 

complex antitrust and consumer protection litigation. 

51. There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and members of 

the Classes. Those common questions predominate over any questions which may affect 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 13 of 38
14 

only individual members of the Classes. Predominant questions of law and fact common 

to Plaintiff and members of the Classes include, inter alia: 

a. Whether Defendants and their Co-Conspirators engaged and/or 

participated in a combination and/or conspiracy to raise, fix and/or 

maintain prices of Compressors and/or Compressor Products sold 

in the United States and Class Jurisdictions; 

b. The duration and extent of the combination and/or conspiracy 

alleged herein; 

c. The identity of the participants of the alleged combination and/or 

conspiracy; 

d. Whether, and to what extent, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators 

affirmatively acted in furtherance of the alleged combination 

and/or conspiracy; 

e. Whether the alleged combination and/or conspiracy violated the 

Sherman Act as alleged in Count I and whether Plaintiff and 

members of the Nationwide Class are entitled to injunctive relief; 

f. Whether the alleged combination and/or conspiracy violated the 

state antitrust statutes as alleged in Count II; 

g. Whether the alleged combination and/or conspiracy violated the 

state consumer protection and unfair competition statutes as 

alleged in Count III; 

h. Whether Defendants unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment 

of the Nationwide Class, thereby entitling Plaintiff and other Class 

members to disgorgement of all benefits derived therefrom, as 

alleged in Count IV; 

i. Whether Defendants took affirmative steps to fraudulently conceal 

the combination and/or conspiracy alleged herein; 

j. The effect the combination and/or conspiracy had on the price of 

Compressors and Compressor Products sold in the United States 

and Class Jurisdictions during the Class Period; 

k. Whether the conduct of Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, as 

alleged in this Complaint, caused injury to the business or property 

of Plaintiff and members of the Classes; and 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 14 of 38
15 

l. The appropriate measure of damages sustained by Plaintiff and 

other members of the Classes. 

52. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy because: 

a. It will avoid a multiplicity of suits and consequent burden on the 

parties and the courts; 

b. It would be impracticable for all members of the Classes to 

intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action; 

c. It will allow numerous individuals to adjudicate their claims in a 

single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without duplication 

of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would 

entail; 

d. It will assure uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated 

without sacrificing procedural fairness or causing other undesirable 

results; and 

e. It will permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by certain 

Class members, who could not afford to individually litigate an 

antitrust claim against large corporate defendants. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Compressor Industry

53. Defendants’ conspiracy was facilitated by the characteristics of 

Compressors, Compressor Products and their respective markets.

54. Compressors are devices used in refrigeration and air conditioning units. 

They compress a refrigerant gas that later expands, drawing heat away from the 

surroundings and producing a cooling effect necessary for Compressor Products. 

55. Compressors are manufactured for, and indeed are the operational core of, 

Compressor Products. A freezer, for instance, is essentially just a Compressor and an 

insulated box. For purposes of this complaint, Compressor Products include but are not 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 15 of 38
16 

limited to: commercial and residential refrigeration applications such as freezers, 

dehumidifiers, display cases, water fountains, ice makers, vending machines; household 

refrigerators and freezers; as well as commercial and residential unitary central air 

conditioning systems and room air conditioners. 

56. The markets for Compressors and Compressor Products are inextricably 

intertwined and interdependent. Compressors have no independent utility and only have 

value as a component of Compressor Products. The demand for Compressors thus 

directly derives from the demand for such products.

57. Compressors are largely homogenous commodities. Within certain 

categories, individual Compressors are readily interchangeable such that purchasers make 

their purchasing decisions largely based on price. For example, many Defendants’ 

websites offer features which allow the consumer to directly compare competitors’ 

Compressors in order to determine which compressor offered by that Defendant can be 

substituted for a competitor’s models. 

58. The commodity-like nature of Compressors is also exemplified by the 

significant aftermarket for replacement Compressors in the United States. The demand in 

the commercial refrigeration aftermarket alone is projected to reach $6.5 billion by 2012.

59. Demand for Compressors and Compressor Products such as refrigerators, 

freezers, and air conditioners is markedly inelastic. There are no substitutes for 

Compressors in refrigerators or air-conditioning units; nor are there any close substitutes 

for the refrigerators or air-conditioning units themselves. 

60. The Compressor market is largely vertically integrated. Many 

manufacturers of Compressors including many Defendants are also the largest producers 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 16 of 38
17 

of Compressor Products. These manufacturers and Defendants fulfill most of their own 

Compressor needs. 

61. Defendants Whirlpool and Panasonic, for example, produce Compressors 

as well as Compressor Products such as refrigerators and air conditioners in which they 

use their own Compressors. 

62. The commodity-like nature of compressors and their interchangeability 

create an environment that should foster intense price competition. Thus, absent 

Defendants’ collusive behavior, the markets for Compressors and Compressor Products 

would be highly competitive. Defendant Whirlpool emphasizes this fact numerous times 

in its 10k Filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission. For instance, 

Whirlpool states, “[e]ach of our business segments operates in a highly competitive 

business environment and faces intense competition from a growing number of 

competitors...” Those competitors increase their market share through “aggressive 

pric[ing].” “If we are unable to successfully compete in this highly competitive 

environment, our business and financial performance could be negatively affected.” 

63. The highly concentrated supply for the Compressor industry aids the 

creation and maintenance of Defendants’ cartel. The top eight manufacturers make up 

98.5% of the global market share. Defendant Whirlpool, controls 45% of the domestic 

market. In all, Defendants control a major share of the market, both globally and in the 

United States. 

64. There are significant barriers to entry into the Compressors market such as 

costly and lengthy start-up requirements. These costs include the purchase of multimillion dollar manufacturing plants and equipment, the creation and maintenance of a 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 17 of 38
18 

skilled labor force and a distribution infrastructure, and ongoing energy and 

transportation costs. 

65. Defendants’ collusion was also made possible, and disguised as legitimate, 

through membership in industry trade organizations. For instance, Defendants and 

almost the entire industry are members of Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration 

Distributors International (“HARDI”), a trade organization for the heating, ventilating, air 

conditioning, and refrigeration industry. 

66. Defendants Danfoss, Embraco, Panasonic and Tecumseh are also 

members of the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”), an 

Arlington, Virginia-based trade association. Both HARDI and AHRI hold regular 

meetings at locations throughout the United States. 

67. Defendants have unlawfully taken advantage of these factors in the 

creation and furtherance of their price-fixing conspiracy and have exacted enormous 

profits. 

International Investigations and Amnesty Applications

68. In mid-February 2009, antitrust authorities across the globe announced 

investigations regarding whether the Compressor market’s largest manufacturers, 

including Defendants, had fixed, maintained, and raised prices of Compressors and 

Compressor Products. 

69. The cartel’s existence was brought to light when Defendant Tecumseh 

voluntarily disclosed the matter to U.S., Brazilian and EU authorities. According to an 

internal memorandum of Tecumseh from Tecumseh’s president, chairman, and CEO:

In mid-2008 we were made aware of certain activities that appeared to 

have occurred in prior years that did not appear to conform to our policies 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 18 of 38
19 

and standards of ethical conduct. Upon discovering these acts, the 

Company commenced an internal investigation led by independent outside 

counsel and directed by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. 

We also promptly brought the matter to the attention of authorities, and we 

have been cooperating with them in further information gathering. As a 

result of this action, we entered into amnesty agreements in the U.S., 

Brazilian and EU jurisdictions. These agreements, which are conditioned 

on factors that include our continued cooperation with authorities, should 

protect the company from governmental fines and penalties that could 

result if the reported conduct is found to violate applicable law in such 

jurisdictions. 

70. Tecumseh officially announced its cooperation with the DOJ in a press 

release regarding a proposed recapitalization plan, stating:

On February 12, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (the 

“DOJ”) granted the Company conditional amnesty pursuant to the 

Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy, and the Company entered 

into an agreement with the DOJ under which the Company will not be 

subject to criminal prosecution with respect to the investigation, so long as 

the Company continues to comply with the Corporate Leniency Policy. 

71. The international investigations became public on February 17, 2009, 

when the Brazilian authorities conducted a series of dawn raids on the offices of a 

number of Compressor manufacturers, as well as the residences of current or former 

officers of at least two Defendant companies, in the Brazilian states of Sao Paulo and 

Santa Catarina. 

72. According to a Brazilian report, “[t]he initial investigation shows that 

companies involved had agreed, through their managers, to fix price increases and also 

exchanged commercially sensitive information, harming free competition and 

consumers.” The report noted that Defendants had been exchanging confidential 

information for over 12 years.

73. In coordination with the Brazilian authorities, the EC also conducted raids 

of Defendants’ offices for potential violations of EC antitrust rules in Denmark, 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 19 of 38
20 

Germany, and Italy. The EC acknowledged on February 18, that “on 17 February 2009, 

Commission officials carried out unannounced inspections of the premises of producers 

of compressors... in several Member States. The Commission has reason to believe that 

the companies concerned may have violated EC Treaty rules on restrictive business 

practices[...] which prohibits practices such as price fixing and customer allocation.”

74. The DOJ announced their investigation into Defendants’ unlawful 

conspiracy on February 19, 2009 with a released statement that “[t]he Antitrust Division 

is investigating the possibility of anticompetitive practices in the compressor industry... 

We are coordinating with other foreign competition authorities.”

75. Since that time, several Defendants have publicly confirmed the 

investigation as well as the receipt of grand jury subpoenas from the DOJ. Whirlpool, for 

example, in a February 19, 2009 filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission 

(“SEC”), confirmed that its Brazilian subsidiary, Defendant Embraco, had been raided by 

Brazilian authorities; that its Italian subsidiary, the headquarters of the company’s 

European operations, was raided by the EC; and that the Antitrust Division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice has issued grand jury subpoenas and requests for “documents 

relating to an antitrust investigation of the global compressor industry.” 

76. Defendant Tecumseh confirmed in a statement on February 19, 2009 that 

it had received “a formal request for information from the secretariat of Economic Law of 

the Ministry of Justice of Brazil” related to its investigation of the Compressor industry. 

Defendant Tecumseh has also confirmed that the Antitrust Division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice has issued grand jury subpoenas, stating that the investigation was 

“related to a pricing issue.” 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 20 of 38
21 

77. Defendant Danfoss confirmed that its headquarters in Nordborg, Denmark 

and its primary compressor manufacturing facility in Flensburg, Germany has been 

raided by the EC and that “several of Danfoss’ companies in the USA were visited by the 

American competition authority,” and that “the reason for the visits and the pending 

investigation is the suspicion of illegal pricing arrangements within the compressor 

market.” 

78. Defendant Panasonic has likewise confirmed it has been contacted by the 

U.S. government about an investigation relating to Compressor pricing. 

79. Several individuals in Defendants’ companies have also been targeted by 

antitrust authorities. The Brazilian press has reported that Brazilian antitrust and lawenforcement authorities raided the Sao Carlos home of Gerson Verissimo, who was 

President of Defendant Tecumseh Brasil until 2008, and the Sau Paulo home of Paulo 

F.M.O. Periquito, who was President of Defendant Whirlpool’s Latin American 

operations from 1997 through 2007, and was currently President of Whirlpool 

International. 

80. On February 26, 2009, Defendant Tecumseh disclosed that former 

President, CEO, and Director Todd Herrick and his son Kent Herrick, a current Board 

member and former Executive Vice President and Vice President of Global Business 

Development, “have not cooperated with the Company in its own investigation,” and that 

“the Company believes that they also have refused to cooperate with the investigating 

antitrust authorities, despite the Company’s request that they do so.” Defendant 

Tecumseh also disclosed that the conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ entered on 

February 12, 2009 “specifically excludes Todd Herrick and Kent Herrick.” 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 21 of 38
22 

81. To be granted amnesty from antitrust regulators in the United States, 

Europe, and Brazil, Defendant Tecumseh necessarily has (a) admitted to the existence of 

the conspiracy alleged herein, (b) admitted to participating in the conspiracy, and (c) 

provided sufficient information to identify others involved and their roles in the 

conspiracy. According to DOJ guidelines, a corporate amnesty applicant “must admit its 

participation in a criminal antitrust violation involving price fixing, bid rigging, capacity 

restriction, or allocation of markets . . . before it will receive a conditional leniency letter. 

A company that . . . cannot produce any employees who will admit that the company 

entered into such an agreement generally has not made a sufficient admission of criminal 

antitrust violation to be eligible for leniency.” Similarly, for leniency by the EC, a 

company participant in a cartel “must provide evidence that enables the Commission to 

prove infringement.” Finally, for leniency from Brazil’s Ministry of Justice – Secretariat 

of Economic Law, an applicant must provide authorities with “an admission of 

participation in the anticompetitive practice” and provide a “complete description of the 

anticompetitive practice, including identification of the other participants and the 

respective individual roles.” 

Defendants’ Conspiracy And Harms Caused To Plaintiff And The Classes

82. From as early as January 1, 1996 through the present, Defendants have 

entered into a continuing combination and conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and 

commerce. Specifically, Defendants have conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize 

prices of Compressors and Compressor Products in the United States; to restrict and limit 

the supply of Compressors and Compressor Products; and have combined and conspired 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 22 of 38
23 

to allocate customers and markets in which the Compressors and Compressor Products 

are sold in the United States. 

83. Prior to the combination and conspiracy, Defendants were actual 

competitors in the Compressor and/or Compressor Products market. Defendants shared a 

conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve the unlawful objective 

of dividing the market for Compressors and/or Compressor Products by allocating 

customers and markets in which Compressors and/or Compressor Products were sold. 

84. In order to formulate and effectuate their combination and conspiracy, 

Defendants participated in meetings and conversations to discuss the prices and supply of 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products, agreed to manipulate the prices and supply of 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products sold throughout the United States and Class 

Jurisdictions, divided the U.S. market for Compressors and/or Compressor Products 

among themselves and their Co-Conspirators, sold Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products to customers throughout the United States at non-competitive prices, and 

provided false statements to the public to explain the increased prices. 

85. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, prices for Compressors and 

Compressor Products were artificially raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized in the 

United States and Class Jurisdictions at a level higher than they would have been in the 

absence of the illegal conduct alleged in this complaint. 

86. The effect of Defendants’ unlawful conduct is apparent in the 

Compressors market – a market that has not behaved as a competitive market free from 

collusion would have. For instance, pricing trends of Compressors provide strong 

evidence of the existence and effect of Defendants’ conspiracy. According to Producer 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 23 of 38
24 

Price Index data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of Compressors 

rose 9.5% between December 2004 and January 2005 followed by 21 months of very 

little variation. Then again, between September 2006 and January 2007, prices rose 7.6 

% with another extended period of flat prices extending to March 2008. Overall, prices 

increased 28.6 % between December 2004 and 2008. 

87. This pattern of price changes is a powerful indicator of collusive pricing. 

As one commentator stated, “When firms are moderately patient, there is partially rigid 

pricing so the price function is a step function of cost in which case price is often 

unchanged but then experiences a large change. This also serves to distinguish collusion 

from competition.” 

88. The rise has been facilitated through incremental but concurrent increases 

evidencing Defendants priced in parallel and did not engage in aggressive competition to 

gain market share. In the fall of 2004 for instance, Defendants Whirlpool and Tecumseh 

acknowledged broad price increases as did at least one other manufacturer. Defendants’ 

prices have generally risen through the Class Period in a manner not consistent with the 

pricing of similar products, nor have the price increases been consistent with the cost 

trends in the industry. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants have continued to enjoy 

healthy margins generally similar to each other. Such are not characteristics of a market 

of free competition. 

89. Defendants’ illegal combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade has 

exacted, and continues to exact, untold damages upon the market. The global market for 

Compressors has been estimated to be approximately $21 billion in 2007. The supracompetitive prices intended, charged, and accepted by Defendants for Compressors and 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 24 of 38
25 

Compressor Products over the Class Period has resulted in billions of dollars in overcharges paid by purchasers, including Plaintiff and members of the Classes. One report 

in Brazil estimated damages in that country for 2008 alone at over $400 million dollars. 

Damages in the domestic market will be similarly astronomical – in one year, 2002, the 

U.S. Census estimated total domestic sales at almost $2.5 billion. Those sales multiplied 

over the 12 year conspiracy period mean that even the slightest of overcharge would 

result in staggering losses to purchasers of Compressors and Compressor products. 

90. Defendants’ conspiracy to fix, raise or maintain the price of Compressors 

and Compressor Products at artificial levels resulted in harm to Plaintiff and other 

members of the Classes alleged herein because it resulted in them paying higher prices 

for Compressors and Compressor Products than they would have had no conspiracy 

occurred. 

91. There is a direct, measurable, and traceable correlation between the price 

of Compressors and the prices of Compressor Products such as refrigerators, freezers, and 

air-conditioners. The price of the former is a significant factor in the price of the latter. 

By some estimates, Compressor costs account for nearly one half of the cost for raw 

materials for air conditioners and for approximately one sixth of the total cost of 

refrigerators. Defendants’ conspiracy to raise the prices of Compressors caused price 

increases in Compressor Products. 

92. As a result of the conspiracy, the prices charged to Plaintiff and other 

Class Members for Compressors and Compressor Products were substantially and 

artificially inflated. An overcharge imposed by a monopolist at the top of a chain of 

distribution is generally there on imposed at every subsequent level below. Furthermore, 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 25 of 38
26 

in competitive markets such as these, an artificial overcharge equal to nearly all, or more 

than all, of the “overcharge” at higher levels of the distribution chain is reflected in the 

price of goods purchased by consumers as well as the products in which such goods are 

important components. 

93. Furthermore, as explained above, many Defendants are manufacturers of 

both Compressors and Compressor Products. Thus, by fixing prices of Compressors, 

Defendants also fixed the prices of Compressor Products thereby imposing the 

overcharge on end-purchasers. 

94. Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy has had and continues to have at least 

the following effects: 

a. Prices paid by Plaintiff and members of the Classes for 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products were fixed, stabilized, 

and maintained at supracompetitive levels in the United States and 

each of its states and territories. 

b. Customers and markets for Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products were allocated among Defendants and their coconspirators; 

c. Plaintiff and members of the Classes paid more for Compressors 

and/or Compressor Products than they would have in a competitive 

marketplace; 

d. Price competition in the sale of Compressors and/or Compressor 

Products was restrained, suppressed and eliminated in the United 

States and each of its states and territories; and 

e. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal conspiracy, Plaintiff 

and members of the Classes have been injured and financially 

damaged in their businesses and property, in amounts to be 

determined. 

VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

COUNT ONE 

VIOLATION OF SECTION ONE OF THE SHERMAN ACT (15 U.S.C. §1)

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 26 of 38
27 

95. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

96. Defendants’ anticompetitive activity as described above violates Section 

One of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §1). As a direct and proximate result of this violation 

of law, Plaintiff and the members of the Nationwide Class have been, and continue to be, 

damaged in their respective businesses and property by paying higher prices to purchase 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products than they would absent Defendants’ conduct. 

This injury is of the type that the Sherman and Clayton Acts were designed to prevent, 

flows directly from Defendants’ conduct, and flows from that which makes Defendants’ 

conduct unlawful. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class, pursuant to Rule 57 

of the Rules of Civil Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 2201(a), seek a declaratory judgment that 

Defendants’ conduct in seeking to prevent competition as described herein violates 

Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class further seek injunctive 

relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, and other applicable law, 

to correct the anticompetitive market effects caused by Defendants’ unlawful conduct and 

to assure that similar anti-competitive conduct does not occur in the future. 

COUNT TWO 

VIOLATION OF STATE ANTITRUST STATUTES

97. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

98. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above are in violation of the 

following state antitrust statutes. 

99. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Arizona Revised Stat. § 44-1401, et seq.

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 27 of 38
28 

100. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700, et seq.

101. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of D.C. Code Ann. § 28-4503, et seq.

102. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Iowa Code § 553.1, et seq.

103. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-101, et seq.

104. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Me. Stat. Ann. 10, § 1101, et seq.

105. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.773, et seq.

106. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Minn. Stat. § 325D.52, et seq.

107. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A., et seq.

108. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 59-801, et seq.

109. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1, et seq.

110. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1, et seq.

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 28 of 38
29 

111. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of N.D. Cent. Code § 51-08.1-01, et seq.

112. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 257, et seq. and P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, § 5141, 

et seq. 

113. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 37-1, et seq.

114. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-101, et seq.

115. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Vt. Stat. Ann. 9 § 2453, et seq.

116. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of W. Va. Code § 47-18-1, et seq.

117. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade 

in violation of Wis. Stat. § 133.01, et seq.

118. Plaintiff and members of the State-Specific Classes have been injured in 

their business and property by reason of Defendants’ unlawful combination, contract, 

conspiracy and agreement and acts in furthers thereof. Plaintiff and members of the 

State-Specific Classes have paid more for Compressors and/or Compressor Products than 

they otherwise would have paid for them in the absence of Defendants’ conduct. The 

injury is of the type the antitrust laws listed above were designed to prevent and flows 

directly from Defendants’ conduct and from that which makes Defendants’ conduct 

unlawful. Accordingly, Plaintiff and members of the State-Specific Classes who 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 29 of 38
30 

purchased a Compressor and/or Compressor Product in any of the states listed above seek 

all appropriate relief as provided for by the applicable state law, including but not limited 

to damages, to be trebled or otherwise increased where permitted by a particular state’s 

antitrust law, and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent 

permitted by the state’s antitrust laws. 

COUNT THREE 

VIOLATION OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION AND UNFAIR 

COMPETITION STATUTES

119. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

120. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

deceptive, and/or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the following state consumer 

protection and unfair competition statutes. 

121. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Ark. Code § 4-88-101, et seq.

122. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

123. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices or made false representations in violation of D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq.

124. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.

125. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Kan. Stat. § 50-623, et seq.

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 30 of 38
31 

126. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of 5 Me. Rev. Stat. tit. § 205-A, et seq. 

127. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A, et seq. 

128. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.901, et seq. 

129. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601, et seq.

130. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0903, et seq.

131. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-A:1, et seq.

132. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of N.M. Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq.

133. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.

134. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.

135. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 6 13.1-1, et seq.

136. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of 9 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 2451, et seq.

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 31 of 38
32 

137. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Wisc. Stat. § 100.20, et seq.

138. Plaintiff and members of the State-Specific Classes have been injured in 

their business and property by reason of Defendants’ unfair, anticompetitive, or deceptive 

acts or practices. Plaintiff and members of the State-Specific Classes have paid more for 

Compressors and/or Compressor Products than they otherwise would have paid for them 

in the absence of Defendants’ conduct. The injury is of the type the consumer protection 

and unfair competition statutes listed above were designed to prevent and flows directly 

from Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff and members of the StateSpecific Classes who purchased a Compressor and/or Compressor Product in any of the 

states listed above seek all appropriate relief as provided for by the applicable state law, 

including but not limited to actual damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

and equitable relief, such as restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, 

profits, compensation and benefits which may have been obtained by Defendants as a 

result of their unlawful conduct. 

COUNT FOUR 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

139. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

140. Defendants have been unjustly enriched through overpayments by Plaintiff 

and members of the Classes and the resulting profits. 

141. Under common law principles of unjust enrichment, Defendants should 

not be permitted to retain the benefits conferred via overpayments by Plaintiff and 

members of the Classes. 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 32 of 38
33 

142. Plaintiff and all members of the Nationwide Class seek disgorgement of 

all profits resulting from such overpayments and establishment of a constructive trust 

from which Plaintiff and members of the Nationwide Class may seek restitution. 

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

140. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

141. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators 

engaged in a successful, illegal price-fixing conspiracy that was by its nature selfconcealing and further effectively, affirmatively, and fraudulently concealed their 

unlawful combination and conspiracy, and acts in furtherance thereof from Plaintiff and 

the members of the Classes. 

142. Although Plaintiff exercised due diligence throughout the Class Period, he 

could not have discovered Defendants’ unlawful combination and conspiracy at an earlier 

date because of Defendants’ effective, affirmative, and fraudulent concealment of 

activities. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was carried out in part through means and 

methods that were designed and intended to avoid detection, and which in fact, 

successfully precluded detection. 

143. Plaintiff has exercised due diligence by promptly investigating the facts 

giving rise to the claims asserted herein upon having reasonable suspicion of the 

existence of Defendants’ conspiracy, and by seeking discovery as to the matters asserted 

herein, to the extent permitted by law. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 33 of 38
34 

144. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 

demands a trial by jury of all claims asserted in this Complaint so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follow: 

A. That the Court determine that the Sherman Act, state antitrust law, and 

state consumer protection and/or unfair competition law claims alleged 

herein may be maintained by the classes proposed herein under Rules 

23(a) and (b)(2) – (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that 

Plaintiff may be certified as class representative, and that Plaintiff’s 

counsel be appointed as counsel for these Classes; 

B. That Defendants and Co-Conspirators, by participating in the contract, 

combination, and conspiracy alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to 

have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as 

alleged in Count I; 

C. That Defendants and Co-Conspirators, by participating in the contract, 

combination, and conspiracy alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to 

have violated the state antitrust laws as alleged in Count II; 

D. That Defendants and Co-Conspirators, by participating in the contract, 

combination, and conspiracy alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to 

have violated the state consumer protection and unfair competition laws as 

alleged in Count III; 

E. That Defendants and Co-Conspirators, by participating in the contract, 

combination, and conspiracy alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to 

have been unjustly enriched by their unlawful conduct as alleged in Count 

IV; 

F. That Defendants, their Co-Conspirators, successors, parents, transferees, 

assigns, subsidiaries, affiliates, and the officers, directors, partners, agents, 

and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on 

behalf of Defendants, be permanently enjoined and restrained from 

continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conspiracy, combination, 

contract, or agreement alleged herein, or from entering into any other 

contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, 

and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device 

having a similar purpose or effect as provided by Section 16 of the 

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26; 

G. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class recover damages, as provided by the 

state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unfair competition 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 34 of 38
35 

laws listed in Counts II and III, and that a joint and several judgment be 

entered in favor of Plaintiff and the Classes and against Defendants in an 

amount to be trebled or otherwise increased in accordance with such laws, 

except in New York where treble damages are expressly waived; 

H. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class obtain any penalties, punitive or 

exemplary damages, and/or full consideration, where the laws of the 

respective states identified herein so permit; 

I. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class recover damages and/or all other 

available monetary and equitable remedies under the state consumer 

protection and/or unfair competition laws identified above; 

J. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class be awarded restitution, including 

disgorgement of profits obtained by Defendants as a result of their acts of 

unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment; 

K. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class recover pre-judgment and postjudgment interest as permitted by law, and that such interest be awarded at 

the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial 

complaint in this action; 

L. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class recover their costs of the suit, 

including attorneys’ fees, as provided by law; and 

M. That Plaintiff and the relevant Class have such other, further, and different 

relief as the case may require and the Court may deem just and proper 

under the circumstances. 

July 9, 2009 ___s/ Marshall J. Widick__________ 

 

 Marshall J. Widick (P53942) 

 Andrew Nickelhoff (P37990) 

 SACHS WALDMAN PC 

 1000 Farmer St. 

 Detroit, MI 48226 

Tel: (313) 965-3464 

Fax: (313) 965-4602 

mwidick@sachswaldman.com 

anickelhoff@sachswaldman.com 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 35 of 38
36 

 

Manfred P. Muecke 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, 

 FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 

600 West Broadway 

Suite 900 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Tel: (619) 756-7748 

Fax: (602) 274-1199 

Frank J. Balint 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, 

 FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 

2901 N. Central Ave. 

Suite 1000 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Tel: (602) 274-1100 

Fax: (602) 274-1199 

Ian Otto 

STRAUS & BOIES, LLP 

 Timothy D. Battin 

 Joshua Raynes 

 4041 University Dr. 

 5th Floor 

 Fairfax, VA 22030 

 Tel: (703) 764-8700 

 Fax: (703) 764-8704 

 iotto@straus-boies.com 

Mark Schirmer 

STRAUS & BOIES, LLP 

1661 International Drive 

Suite 400 

Memphis, TN 38120 

Tel: (901) 818-3146 

Daniel E. Birkhaeuser 

BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER 

 & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP 

2125 Oak Grove Rd. 

Suite 120 

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 

Tel: (925) 945-0200 

Marc G. Reich 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 36 of 38
37 

REICH RADCLIFFE, LLP 

4675 MacArthur Court 

Suite 550 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Tel: (949) 975-0512 

Jeffrey A. Bartos 

GUERRIERI, EDMOND, 

 CLAYMAN & BARTOS, P.C. 

1625 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., 

Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel: (202) 624-7400 

John D. Mills 

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN D. MILLS 

1415 Dean St. Suite 105 

Ft. Myers, FL 33901 

Tel: (239) 337-3535 

James Linnan 

LINNAN & FALLON, LLP 

61 Columbia Street 

Suite 300 

Albany, NY 12210 

Tel: (518) 449-5400 

James Wyatt 

WYATT & BLAKE, LLP 

435 E. Morehead St. 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Tel: (704) 331-0767 

Eric J. Pickar 

BANGS, MCCULLEN, BUTLER, 

FOYE & SIMMONS, LLP 

333 West Blvd, Suite 400 

P.O. Box 2670 

Rapid City, SD 57709 

Tel: (605) 343-1040 

Michael Simon 

FRANKOVITCH, ANETAKIS, 

COLANTONIO & SIMON 

337 Penco Rd. 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 37 of 38
38 

Weirton, WV 26062 

Tel: (304) 723-5892 

Susan LaCava 

SUSAN LACAVA, SC 

23 N. Pinckney St. 

Suite 300 

Madison, WI 53703 

Tel: (608) 258-1335 

 Of Counsel 

Case 2:09-cv-12712-SFC-DAS Document 1 Filed 07/09/09 Page 38 of 38