Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Indirect purchasers’ state law claims proceed in U.S. auto parts price fixing action, (May 5, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In consolidated antitrust actions by automobile dealers and end-payors against manufacturers of automotive parts, the plaintiffs could proceed with antitrust claims under Oregon and Hawaii law against the manufacturers for their participation in the alleged conspiracy to fix prices of certain automotive parts sold in the United States, the federal district court in Detroit has decided. However, the plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Antitrust Act were dismissed (In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation), May 1, 2015, Battani, M.).

Automobile dealers (ADPs) and consumers who purchased and leased vehicles (end-payor plaintiffs or EPPs) filed a series of class actions, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices automotive parts by DENSO Corp., Mitsuba Corp., and other companies that manufactured and sold the automotive parts. The defendants collectively moved for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaints.

State law claims. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s prohibition on antitrust actions by indirect purchasers set forth in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), many states, including Oregon, enacted repealer statutes, allowing state actions for indirect purchasers, the court explained. In this case, the plaintiffs proceeded under the Oregon repealer statute enacted in 2010. It was undisputed that the litigation commenced after the effective date of the repealer statute.

The defendants’ argument that the statute did not address retroactivity and therefore limited its application to conduct that took place after the enactment of the statute was rejected. Relying on Whipple v. Howser, 632 P.2d. 782 (Or. 1981), the court noted that statutory construction was not necessary, since the conduct must have accrued before the suit could be commenced. Since the statute contained no language limiting the provision to conduct occurring after the statute effective date, the court could not find that the legislature intended the statute to apply prospectively and declined to limit the plaintiffs’ claims under Oregon law to conduct that occurred after 2009.

The court also declined to dismiss the claims brought under the Hawaii antitrust laws. Under Hawaii law, complaints are required to be filed under seal as to allow the state attorney general the opportunity to prosecute. If the attorney general declines to proceed, then the class plaintiff has the right to do so. In rejecting the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the statute, the court noted that the statutory requirements were met in this case — the attorney general was informed of the litigation, received copies of the complaints, declined to prosecute, had the complaints unsealed, and gave the plaintiffs permission to proceed with the litigation.

However, the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims under Illinois law were dismissed. The Illinois Antitrust Act does not allow an indirect purchaser to maintain an antitrust claim as a class action, the court explained. In rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the Act did not apply to actions advanced in federal court, the court noted that the prohibition contained in the Act was “substantive and was intertwined with the creation of the substantive right of indirect purchasers to sue.”

The case is No. 12-md-02311.

Attorneys: Marc M. Seltzer (Susman Godfrey, LLP) and Steven N. Williams (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP) for End-Payor Plaintiffs. Brian C. Smith (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP) for DENSO Corp. and DENSO International America, Inc. Jason R. Gourley (Bodman LLP) for T.RAD Co., Ltd. and T.RAD North America Inc. Adam Cardenas Hemlock (Weil, Gotshal & Manges) for Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc. Austin Van Schwing (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) for Mitsuba Corp. and American Mitsuba Corp.

Companies: DENSO Corp.; DENSO International America, Inc.; T.RAD Co., Ltd.; T.RAD North America Inc.; Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc.; Mitsuba Corp.; American Mitsuba Corp.

Cases: Antitrust MichiganNews