IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

KOHLDER MANUFACTURING 

COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

 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, 

INC., DANFOSS COMMERCIAL 

COMPRESSORS, LTD., DANFOSS SCROLL 

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DANFOSS 

TURBOCOR COMPRESSORS, INC., 

APPLIANCES COMPONENTS 

COMPANIES, SPA, ACC USA LLC, 

PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC 

CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, 

EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC., COPELAND CORPORATION LLC, 

CR COMPRESSORS, LLC, and SCROLL 

COMPRESSORS, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, Kohlder Manufacturing Company, Inc., by its undersigned attorneys, 

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

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

United States. The allegations set forth below are based upon information and belief pursuant to 

the investigation of counsel. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 1 of 20
2

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This lawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff Kohlder 

Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and all individuals and entities who purchased 

compressors and/or compressor products in the United States directly from defendants, their 

predecessors, successors, parents, or controlled subsidiaries and affiliates from at least as early as 

January 1, 1996 and continuing until at least February 16, 2009 (“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 defendants that contain a Compressor 

manufactured by a defendant. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, for treble damages and other relief, including reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs of suit, for defendants’ violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

3. This Court has jurisdiction over 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. 

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, during the Class Period, one or more of the defendants 

resided, transacted business, was found, or had agents in this district and because a substantial 

part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred, and a substantial portion of the 

affected interstate trade and commerce described below has been carried out, in this district. 

5. By Order dated June 9, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found 

that a number of actions relating to allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 2 of 20
3

and stabilize the price at which refrigerant compressors and products made with compressors 

were sold in the United States involved common factual questions, that centralization was 

appropriate, and that the Eastern District of Michigan is an appropriate transferee forum for this 

litigation. 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Kohlder Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with 

its principal place of business in Camden, New Jersey. During the Class Period, Plaintiff 

purchased Compressor Products from one or more of the defendants. The prices Plaintiff paid 

for the Compressor Products were, as a result of the conspiracy herein alleged, higher than they 

otherwise would have been, and as a result of the alleged conspiracy, Plaintiff was injured in its 

business and property by reason of the antitrust violations alleged herein. 

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

with its principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Defendant Tecumseh, by itself, or 

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

and the United States during the Class Period. 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 manufactures its 

Compressor Products in the United States, Canada, Brazil, France, India, and Malaysia. 

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

principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Defendant Tecumseh Compressor 

Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Tecumseh Products Company. Defendant 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 3 of 20
4

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. 

9. 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 this district 

and the United States during the Class Period. Tecumseh Brasil is Tecumseh’s largest foreign 

manufacturing source. 

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

Delaware limited liability company. Tecumseh Brasil USA 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. 

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

its principal place of business in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Defendant Whirlpool, either itself or 

through one of its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor Products in this 

district and the United States during the Class Period. 

12. 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., 

either directly or indirectly, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Whirlpool Corporation. 

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

Whirlpool Corporation has owned Whirlpool S.A. since approximately 1996. Defendant 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 4 of 20
5

Whirlpool S.A., either itself or through one of its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or 

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

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

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

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

Defendant Whirlpool Corporation. Defendant Embraco NA marketed and/or sold Compressor 

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

14. Defendant Danfoss A/S is a Danish corporation with its principal place of 

business in Nordborg, Denmark. Defendant Danfoss A/S, either 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. 

15. 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. 

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

with its principal place of business in 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. 

17. 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. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 5 of 20
6

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. 

18. 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. 

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

corporation with its principal place of business in Pordenone, Italy. Defendant ACC, by itself or 

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

and the United States during the Class Period. Defendant ACC manufactures its Compressor 

Products in Italy, Austria and China. 

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

principal place of business in Madison, Alabama. Defendant ACC USA 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. 

21. 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. 

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. 

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

with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey. Defendant Panasonic Corporation 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 6 of 20
7

of North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Panasonic Corporation. Defendant 

Panasonic Corporation of North America manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor 

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

23. Defendant Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. (“Emerson Climate”) is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Sidney, Ohio. Defendant Emerson 

Climate is a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded company Emerson Electric Co. 

Defendant Emerson Climate, by itself or through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and/or 

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

24. Defendant Copeland Corporation, LLC (“Copeland”) is a Delaware limited 

liability company with its principal place of business in Rushville, Indiana. Defendant Copeland 

is wholly owned by Defendant Emerson Climate. Defendant Copeland manufactured, marketed 

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

25. Defendant CR Compressors LLC (“CR”) is a Delaware limited liability company 

with its principal place of business in Rushville, Indiana. Defendant CR is wholly-owned by 

Defendant Emerson Climate. Defendant CR manufactured, marketed and/or sold Compressor 

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

26. Defendant Scroll Compressors LLC (“Scroll Compressors”) is a Delaware limited 

liability company with its principal place of business at Sidney, Ohio. Defendant Scroll 

Compressors is wholly owned by Defendant Emerson Climate. Defendant Scroll Compressors 

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

during the Class Period. 

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

or limited liability company, the allegation means that the corporation or other business entity 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 7 of 20
8

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 other business entity. 

CO-CONSPIRATORS

28. 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 aided, abetted and performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

29. 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”). The 

Class is defined as: 

All persons or entities (excluding governmental entities, defendants, and the 

present and former parents, predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliates of 

the foregoing) who purchased Compressor Products directly from any of the 

defendants, or any present or former parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any 

time during the period from at least January 1, 1996 through February 16, 2009. 

30. The members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that 

joinder of all members is impracticable. 

31. 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, noncompetitive prices established by the actions of defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators in 

connection with the wrongful conduct alleged herein. 

32. 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 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 8 of 20
9

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

class action antitrust litigation. 

33. 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: 

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 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. 

34. 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 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 9 of 20
10

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

individually litigate an antitrust claim against large corporate defendants. 

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

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

36. There are no difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this class 

action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action and no superior alternative exists for 

the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of 

the Class. 

THE COMPRESSOR MARKET AND INDUSTRY

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

of the system that creates cold air by compressing cool 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. 

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

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

commercial vending machines and water coolers. 

39. Because Compressors are homogenous, commodity products, purchasers of 

Compressors Products make purchase decisions based largely, if not entirely, on price. 

However, due to defendants’ anticompetitive conduct as alleged in this complaint, defendants 

have been able to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of Compressors at artificially high 

levels. 

40. 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 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 10 of 20
11

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

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

alleged herein. 

41. 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 

longstanding customer relationships. With such barriers to entry, those few firms that have the 

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 firms 

existing in the market have the motivation to keep other firms out of the market to keep their 

share up, and also to collude in order to keep prices up. 

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

producers control a major share of the Compressor market. This concentration makes the market 

conducive to price-fixing. 

GOVERNMENT ANTITRUST INVESTIGATIONS

43. In mid-February, 2009, the media reported that a number of Compressor 

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

known as “Operation Zero Degrees,” 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. 

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

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

including the exchange of sensitive information to eliminate competition. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 11 of 20
12

45. 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 

world-wide 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 the 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 police 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. 

46. 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 Economic 

Protection and Defense, due to the cartel, Compressor prices are between 10% to 20% higher 

than they would have been in a competitive market. 

47. 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 anticompetitive practices such as price fixing 

and customer allocation. The inspections were carried out in several EU member states 

including Denmark, Italy and Germany. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 12 of 20
13

48. On February 19, 2009, the United States Department of Justice, also confirmed, 

through a spokesperson, that it is investigating possible antitrust violations in the multibilliondollar refrigeration compressor industry and that the DOJ is “cooperating with other foreign 

competition authorities.” In addition, the DOJ confirmed the existence of a grand jury and that 

grand jury subpoenas had been issued to several defendants. 

49. In an SEC filing dated February 19, 2009, Whirlpool 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.” 

50. Defendant Tecumseh has also disclosed that it has received subpoenas from 

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

the Compressor Products market. 

51. Danfoss A/S has stated that its offices in Denmark, Italy, Germany and the United 

States were raided by antitrust regulators as part of an investigation into possible price-fixing in 

the Compressor Products market. 

52. On February 23, 2009, Defendant Tecumseh Products Company, disclosed in a 

Form 8-K filed with SEC, that an internal memorandum was prepared and sent to all Tecumseh 

employees by Ed Buker, Tecumseh Products Company’s Chairman, President and CEO, which 

stated: 

In mid-2008 [Tecumseh was] made aware of certain activities that appeared to 

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

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

commenced an internal investigation . . . . We also promptly brought the matter 

to the attention of authorities, and we have been cooperating with them in further 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 13 of 20
14

information gathering. As a result of this action, [Tecumseh] entered into amnesty 

agreements in the U.S., Brazilian and EU jurisdictions. 

ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT

53. Beginning at least as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing until at least 

February 16, 2009, the exact dates being currently unknown to Plaintiff, defendants entered into 

an unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy with the purpose and effect of fixing prices, 

allocating markets and committing other anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully raise, 

fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of Compressor Products in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act. 

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

or 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. 

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

defendants and their co-conspirators have committed overt acts including, among others: 

a. Participating in meetings and conversations to discuss the Compressor 

Products’ market in the United States and worldwide; 

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

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

and worldwide; 

c. Agreeing to divide and allocate customers and markets in which 

Compressor Products are sold; 

d. Exchanging information about Compressor Products prices and sales 

volumes; 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 14 of 20
15

e. Monitoring and implementing the arrangements among cartel members; 

and 

f. Selling Compressor Products to Plaintiff and members of the Class in the 

United States at the agreed upon and supra-competitive prices. 

EFFECTS

56. The unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy alleged above had the 

following effects: 

a. Prices for Compressor Products sold by defendants and their coconspirators have been raised, fixed, maintained or stabilized at artificially high 

and non-competitive levels; 

b. Plaintiff and other members of the Class paid more for Compressor 

Products that they purchased than they would have paid under competitive 

conditions; and 

c. 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 not presently 

determinable. 

INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE

57. 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 in states and nations to customers located in states and 

nations other than the states and nations in which defendants were located, including this district. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 15 of 20
16

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

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

deprived Plaintiff and the Class of the benefits of free and open competition in the market for 

Compressor Products throughout the United States. 

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

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

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

the Class. 

60. During the Class Period, Plaintiff had no knowledge of defendants’ unlawful 

combination or conspiracy. 

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

methods, which were designed to avoid detection, and which, in fact, successfully precluded 

detection. Defendants undertook affirmative acts of concealment of their combination or 

conspiracy. 

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

and their co-conspirators, Plaintiff and other class members, despite exercising due diligence, did 

not and could not have discovered defendants’ unlawful combination or conspiracy at any earlier 

date. 

63. As a result of defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ concealment of the 

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

tolled. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 16 of 20
17

COUNT I

Violation of Sherman Act Section 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1 

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the allegations 

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 

65. Beginning at least as early as January 1, 1996 and continuing until at least 

February 16, 2009, defendants and their co-conspirators entered into a continuing combination or 

conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 by artificially reducing or eliminating competition in the United States for 

Compressor Products. 

66. In particular, defendants have combined and conspired to raise, fix, maintain or 

stabilize the prices of Compressor Products sold in the United States. Defendants also combined 

and conspired to allocate customers and markets in which Compressor Products are sold. 

67. As a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, prices for Compressor Products were 

raised, fixed, maintained or stabilized in the United States at a level higher than they would have 

been in the absence of the anti-competitive conduct alleged in this complaint. 

68. For purposes of formulating and effectuating their combination or conspiracy, 

defendants and their co-conspirators did those things they combined or conspired to do, 

including: 

a. Participating in meetings and conversations to discuss the prices and 

supply of Compressor Products; 

b. Communicating to fix prices; 

c. Agreeing to manipulate the prices and supply of Compressor Products sold 

in the United States; 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 17 of 20
18

d. Conspiring and agreeing to allocate customers and markets in which 

Compressor Products are sold; 

e. Issuing price announcements and price quotations in accordance with the 

agreements reached; 

f. Selling Compressor Products to customers in the United States at 

noncompetitive prices; and 

g. Providing false statements to the public to explain increased prices for 

Compressor Products. 

69. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ scheme, Plaintiff and the members 

of the Class have been injured and financially damaged in their respective businesses and 

property, in amounts which are presently undetermined. Plaintiff’s injuries consist of paying 

higher prices to purchase Compressor Products than it would have paid absent defendants’ 

conduct. Plaintiff’s injuries are of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent and flow 

from that which makes defendants’ conduct unlawful. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests: 

 A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action 

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and determine that Plaintiff is an 

adequate class representative; 

 B. That the combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by 

defendants, be adjudged to have been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1; 

 C. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and members of the Class against 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 18 of 20
Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 19 of 20
20

Jonathan Shub 

SEEGER WEISS LLP 

1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Telephone: (215) 553-7980 

Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 

Oren Giskan 

GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON 

& STEWART LLP

11 Broadway, Suite 2150 

New York, New York 10004 

Telephone: (212) 847-8315 

Facsimile: (646) 520-3237 

Attorneys for Kohlder Manufacturing 

Company, Inc. 

Case 2:09-cv-13236-SFC-VMM Document 1 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 20 of 20