Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Chinese solar panel producers accused of conspiring to dump products to eliminate competition from American producers, (Oct 7, 2013)

By Edward L. Puzzo, J.D.

Michigan-based solar panel producer Energy Conversion Devices has filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging that its Chinese competitors illegally conspired to fix prices and dump their solar panels in the United States at “irrationally low or below-cost prices,” for the purpose of driving domestic American producers such as ECD out of business, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The complaint in Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Limited was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division on October 4, 2013.

The plaintiff Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., now in bankruptcy, alleges that a conspiracy has existed since 2008 during which the defendants, Chinese based or controlled producers of photovoltaic solar panels, reduced prices in tandem by about 75%, causing such disruption to the American market that defendants collectively increased their market share to 80%. As a result, they allege, ECD and ten other American producers have declared bankruptcy, and others have reduced operations, resulting in the near-complete replacement of domestic solar-panel employment and materials with Chinese employment and materials. Having eliminated their American competition, defendants can now freely raise prices immune from American competition, the complaint alleges.

ECD alleges that trade association China New Energy provided a vehicle through which defendants cooperated and collaborated their pricing and distribution strategy to dominate the American market. ECD specifically alleges that the defendants began dumping products in the American market at the exact same time by the exact same price-cut percentages after meetings in China, belying any claim of independent action. In the absence of this conspiracy, the complain alleges, any one of the defendants could have been expected to raise prices in the face of increasing demand in order to maximize profits, but that did not happen.

Defendants’ conduct, ECD alleges, was an unlawful combination to fix prices at predatory levels and to dump product, in violation of both the Sherman Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act.

The case is Civil Action No. 13-cv-14241.

Attorneys: W. Gordon Dobie and Derek J. Sarafa (Winston and Strawn LLP) for Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust.

Companies: Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust; United Solar Ovonic LLC; Trina Solar Limited; Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited; Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

News: Antitrust MichiganNews