Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: First settlement reached in automobile parts price fixing litigation, (Jan 8, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A proposed settlement of a multidistrict class action brought on behalf of consumers and others against automobile parts suppliers for allegedly for conspiring to fix prices for certain automotive parts for use in new automobiles, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., co-lead counsel for the end-payor plaintiffs, announced yesterday (In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation (Instrument Panel Clusters), Case No. 12-cv-00203).

The settlement is a first in the wake of an expansive criminal investigation of automobile suppliers by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. In the past two years, the Justice Department investigation has resulted in corporate fines of over $1.8 billion and guilty pleas from 23 companies and 25 executives. In November 2012, Nippon Seiki agreed to plead guilty to a one-count criminal information and pay a $1 million fine for participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to fix prices of instrument panel clusters sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States from April 2008 to February 2010.

The civil antitrust suit pending in the federal district court in Detroit, Michigan, charged Nippon Seiki Co. and its affiliates, among other manufacturers, with anticompetitive conduct in the market for instrumental panel clusters which are the mounted array of instruments and gauges housed in the dashboard of an automobile. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the manufacturers engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for instrument panel clusters in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd. and New Sabina Industries, Inc., Japanese companies, design and manufacture and automotive instrumental panel systems, among other consumer products. The plaintiffs, end-payor indirect purchasers of instrument panel clusters, is comprised of businesses that bought vehicles for corporate use and individual consumers who purchased new cars that were not for resale.

Under the proposed settlement, Nippon Seiki and its affiliates would pay $4.56 million into an escrow fund for consumers and other purchasers. As part of the settlement, Nippon Seiki and New Sabina agree to cooperate in the case against the remaining defendants. The plaintiffs filed their motion in the case for preliminary approval of the settlement and certification of the proposed settlement class in late December.

In a motion filed with the court yesterday by non-settling defendants Yazaki Corporation and DENSO Corporation, the court was urged to ensure that provisional certification of the settlement class be “without prejudice to, or waiver of the rights of any Defendants to contest certification of any other class proposed in these coordinated actions.” The non-settling defendants noted that class certification of a litigation class would be hotly contested.

This is Case No. 12-cv-00203.

Attorneys: E. Powell Miller (The Miller Law Firm), Hollis Salzman (Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P) and Marc M. Seltzer (Susman Godfrey L.L.P.) for the plaintiffs. A. Paul Victor (Winston & Strawn LLP) and Fred K. Herrmann (Kerr, Russell and Weber, PLC) for Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd and New Sabina Industries, Inc. John M. Majoras (Jones Day) for Yazaki Corporation. Steven F. Cherry (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP) for DENSO Corp.

Companies: Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.; New Sabina Industries, Inc.; Yazaki Corp.; DENSO Corp.

News: Antitrust