Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Mitsubishi’s $64M settlement of automotive parts price fixing suit preliminarily approved, (Jun 9, 2016)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc. agreed to pay $64,229,268 to settle antitrust claims filed by vehicle purchasers that alleged a conspiracy or set of closely-interrelated conspiracies among the automotive industry’s largest manufacturers, marketers, and sellers of automotive parts to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers for the sale of certain products. The federal district court in Detroit approved the settlement as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the dispute, and certified eight classes for settlement purposes (In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, June 8, 2016, Battani, M.).

The End-Payor Plaintiffs are consumers and businesses who indirectly purchased or leased vehicles containing Alternators, Starters, Ignition Coils, Fuel Injection Systems, Valve Timing Control Devices, Automotive Wire Harness Systems, HID Ballasts, and Electronic Powered Steering Assemblies. End-Payor Plaintiffs and auto dealerships filed separate class action complaints, alleging that Mitsubishi engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for motor generators and inverters.

On March 30, 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which the End-Payor Plaintiffs urged the court to approve. According to the memorandum in support of the motion, the settlement falls well within the range of possible approval and achieves an excellent result for the class members given the expense, duration, and uncertainty of continued litigation.

Certification of the Settlement Classes was warranted, according to the court. The classes were so numerous that joinder is impracticable; the End-Payor Plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the Settlement Classes; End-Payor Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Settlement Classes; and common issues predominate over any individual issues affecting the members of the Settlement Classes. Also, settlement of this action on a class basis was superior to other means of resolving the matter.

The court approved the establishment of the Settlement Funds, consisting of eight escrow accounts—one for each of the Settlement Classes. The means of providing notice will be addressed in a subsequent order.

The case number is 12-md-02311.

Attorneys: Devon P. Allard (Miller Law Firm) and Erin Lindsay Calkins (Susman Godfrey LLP) for End-Payor Plaintiffs. Charles B. Sklarsky (Jenner & Block LLP), David W.R. Wawro (Torys LLP) and Gary K. August (Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, PC) for Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.

Companies: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc.; and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust MichiganNews