Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Panasonic agrees to pay $5.4M to settle automotive parts price fixing litigation, (Apr 2, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In three consolidated antitrust actions by automobile dealers who purchased new vehicles against manufacturers of automotive parts for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of certain automotive parts, Panasonic Corporation has reached an agreement to settle the auto dealers’ claims, according to the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed in the federal district court in Detroit. The plaintiffs have also moved for provisional certification of the settlement class. The agreement was reached after Panasonic struck a separate $17.1 million deal on March 19 to resolve end-payor claims in the multi-district litigation (In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, March 30, 2015).

Pursuant to the proposed settlement agreement, Panasonic would pay a total of $5.4 million into three interest-bearing escrow accounts — for settlement classes related to switches, steering angle sensors, and high intensity discharge (HID) ballasts. Panasonic has also agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of antitrust claims against the remaining defendants, including attorney proffers, depositions of witnesses, and the production of certain documents concerning sales of switches, steering angle sensors, and HID ballasts.

According to the memorandum in support of the motion, the settlement falls well within the range of possible approval and achieves an excellent result for the class members given the expense, duration, and uncertainty of continued litigation. Panasonic is required under the settlement to provide substantial cooperation to the auto dealers’ counsel, which will benefit the class in the litigation continuing against the remaining defendants. Further, the settlement was a result of thorough extensive arm’s length and good faith negotiations conducted by highly experienced counsel.

The motion states that the settlement class satisfies the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finally, common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions and a class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The case is No. 2:13-cv-01302-MOB.

Attorneys: Joshua P. Luchnat (Mantese Honigman, P.C.), Jonathan W. Cuneo (Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP), Don Barrett (Barrett Law Group, P.A.), Larson King, LLP) for the automobile dealer plaintiffs.

Companies: Panasonic Corporation

News: Antitrust MichiganNews