Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: New dealerships allege bid rigging, price fixing by fuel tank device suppliers, (Sep 11, 2013)

By Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LL.M.

Two additional dealerships have filed a complaint in the federal district court in Detroit against suppliers of automobile fuel tank devices that allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to rig bids and fix prices for the parts (Rainbow Chevrolet, Inc. v. Yazaki Corp., filed August 19, 2013, ordered unsealed September 10, 2013). Their complaint follows a complaint filed on August 16 by a range of dealerships in the same court and asserting the same claims.

As in the August 16 complaint, the new dealerships allege that Yazaki Corp. and Denso Corp. engaged in a conspiracy with unnamed co-conspirators to fix prices and rig bids for “fuel senders,” defined in the complaint as “devices that reside inside the fuel tank of an automobile and measure the amount of fuel in the tank.”

According to the complaint, members of the alleged conspiracy colluded on bids submitted in response to requests for quotations (RFQs) from major automobile manufacturers. In turn, the automobile dealers would purchase fuel senders as part of new automobiles and for replacement purposes at surpacompetitive prices. The complaint also details antitrust enforcement actions taken by United States, European Union, and Japanese authorities in the automotive parts industry, including guilty pleas by Yazaki and Denso to price fixing and bid rigging charges with respect to fuel senders and other parts.

The complaint asserts claims for restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; violation of the antitrust statutes of Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; violation of the consumer protection statutes of Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont; and unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks a judgment that the defendants’ conduct constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a violation of each of the state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and acts of unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs requested treble damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, an injunction against continuing or renewing the alleged conduct, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief.

The case is No. 2:13-cv-13564-MOB-MKM.

Attorneys: Gerard V. Mantese (Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C.) for Rainbow Chevrolet, Inc.

Companies: Rainbow Chevrolet, Inc.; Stroebner Holdings, Inc.; Yazaki Corp.; Denso Corp.

News: Antitrust MichiganNews