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 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