Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Waste Management gets U.S. approval to acquire Deffenbaugh Disposal
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS—D. D.C.: Sysco’s executive team member barred from viewing competitor information
    • ADVERTISING—9th Cir.: Consumer action over Benecol nutritional and health benefit claims revived
    • ADVERTISING—N.D. Ill.: Michael Jordan denied summary judgment on publicity claim against grocery chain
    • ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Deceptive claims against Bausch & Lomb preempted by Medical Device Amendments
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Cybersecurity sharing bill with antitrust exemption passed by Senate Intelligence Committee
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: EC urged to apologize for former Competition Commissioner’s statements
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: EU approves ZF Friedrichshafen’s acquisition of TRW
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Guilty plea entered in first U.S. action over price fixing of commercial vehicle parking heaters
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Medtronic agrees to amend warranty terms that allegedly restricted consumer choice
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Sleep apnea products manufacturer allegedly used exclusive contracts to foreclose competition
    • ANTITRUST—D. Nev.: Noerr-Pennington doctrine could be defense to steel framing manufacturer’s claims against competitors
    • ANTITRUST—D.N.J.: Court records remain sealed in anticoagulant pharmaceuticals case
    • ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Motor generator, inverter defendants dismissed from automotive parts litigation
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Motor generator, inverter defendants dismissed from automotive parts litigation, (Mar 13, 2015)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP | Robins Kaplan LLP | Susman Godfrey LLP | Vinson & Elkins LLP | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP | DENSO Corp. | DENSO International America Inc. | Denso International America, Inc. | Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. | Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. | Robins Kaplan, LLP | Susman Godfrey, LLP | Vinson & Elkins, LLP | Wilmer Cutler Hale & Dorr, LLP

    By Greg Hammond, J.D.

    Automobile dealerships and end-payor plaintiffs have stipulated that Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. are not required to respond to amended complaints in an antitrust class action where Hitachi was accus ...

    By Greg Hammond, J.D.

    Automobile dealerships and end-payor plaintiffs have stipulated that Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. are not required to respond to amended complaints in an antitrust class action where Hitachi was accused of engaging in a conspiracy to fix the prices of inverters. In two separate orders, entered by the federal district court in Detroit on March 11, the claims of certain end-payor plaintiffs against DENSO Corp. and DENSO International America Inc. concerning a conspiracy to fix the prices of inverters and motor generators were dismissed (In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, March 12, 2015, Battani, M.).

    End-payor plaintiffs and auto dealerships filed separate class action complaints, alleging that various defendants—including Hitachi and DENSO—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.

    Hitachi has agreed to settle the inverters actions, pending approval and signing of a settlement agreement. Because Hitachi and the plaintiffs continue to negotiate the terms of the settlement agreement, the deadline for Hitachi to respond by answer or motion to the amended complaints was adjourned pending resolution of the settlement negotiations. Hitachi further required to notify the court in the event an agreement is not reached.

    End-payor plaintiffs and DENSO also stipulated to the dismissal of 48 individual end-payor plaintiffs in the inverters and motor generator actions. The individual plaintiffs were dismissed because they did not purchase hybrid or electric vehicles.

    The case number is 12-md-02311.

    Attorneys: Hollis Salzman (Robins Kaplan LLP), Frank Damrell (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP), and Marc M. Seltzer (Susman Godfrey LLP) for End-Payor Plaintiffs. Craig P. Seebald (Vinson & Elkins LLP) for Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. Steven F. Cherry (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) for DENSO Corp. and DENSO International America, Inc.

    Companies: Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.; Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc.; DENSO Corp.; DENSO International America Inc.

    Cases: Antitrust MichiganNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use