Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 119
`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 119
`
`Exhibit 1
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 119
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Joshua Paul Davis (State Bar No. 193254)
`Jiamin Chen (pro hac vice)
`Demetrius X. Lambrinos (State Bar No. 246027)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`Nicomedes Sy Herrera (State Bar No. 275332)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`601 California Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone:
`(415) 500-6800
`Facsimile:
`(415) 395-9940
`Email:
`
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
`jchen@saverilawfirm.com
`dlambrinos@saverilawfirm.com
`jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
`nherrera@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`Interim Lead Class Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
`and Attorneys for Plaintiffs Chip-Tech, Inc., Dependable
`Component Supply Corp., eIQ Energy Inc. and Walker
`Component Group, Inc.
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT and
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS
`INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION;
`FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.’S
`INDIVIDUAL ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-md-02801-JD
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`AND COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 119
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION ......................................................................................... 5 
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................... 9 
`
`III. 
`
`PARTIES ........................................................................................................................10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Plaintiffs .....................................................................................................10 
`
`Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc. ........................................................10 
`
`Defendants ................................................................................................. 11 
`
`Panasonic/SANYO .................................................................................... 11 
`
`NEC TOKIN ............................................................................................. 12 
`
`KEMET ..................................................................................................... 12 
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con ................................................................................... 13 
`
`Hitachi ....................................................................................................... 14 
`
`Fujitsu ........................................................................................................ 15 
`
`Nichicon .................................................................................................... 15 
`
`AVX ........................................................................................................... 17 
`
`Rubycon ..................................................................................................... 17 
`
`10. 
`
`ELNA ....................................................................................................... 20 
`
`11.  Matsuo ...................................................................................................... 23 
`
`12. 
`
`TOSHIN KOGYO .................................................................................... 25 
`
`13.  Holy Stone ................................................................................................ 25 
`
`14. 
`
`15. 
`
`16. 
`
`17. 
`
`18. 
`
`Vishay Polytech ......................................................................................... 27 
`
`ROHM ...................................................................................................... 27 
`
`Okaya ........................................................................................................ 28 
`
`Taitsu ........................................................................................................ 28 
`
`Shinyei ...................................................................................................... 29 
`
`19.  Nitsuko ..................................................................................................... 30 
`
`20.  Nissei ........................................................................................................ 30 
`
`21. 
`
`22. 
`
`Soshin ....................................................................................................... 30 
`
`Shizuki ...................................................................................................... 30 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`AND COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 119
`
`23. 
`
`The Flextronics Defendants ....................................................................... 31 
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS .............................................................................................. 32 
`
`TRADE AND COMMERCE ......................................................................................... 35 
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................ 36 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`1. 
`
`What Capacitors Do and How They Work ................................................ 36 
`
`Types of Capacitors and Their Uses .......................................................... 37 
`
`Electrolytic Capacitors .............................................................................. 38 
`a. 
`
`Aluminum Capacitors ................................................................ 38 
`
`b. 
`
`Tantalum Capacitors .................................................................. 39 
`
`2. 
`
`Electrostatic Capacitors ............................................................................. 41 
`a. 
`
`Film Capacitors ........................................................................... 41 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`b. 
`
`Ceramic Capacitors ..................................................................... 41 
`
`The Market Conditions in Which Defendants’ Conspiracy Originated and
`Operated ................................................................................................... 43 
`
`Defendants’ Collusive Anticompetitive Practices ..................................... 45 
`
`Defendants’ Cartel .................................................................................... 47 
`
`Meetings Among the Defendant Cartel Members During the Class Period
` .................................................................................................................. 49 
`
`The Cartel’s Regular Meetings ................................................................. 49 
`
`Specific Cartel Meetings ........................................................................... 54 
`
`Other Meetings and Conspiratorial Communications Among Defendants 64 
`a. 
`
`SANYO’s Meetings and Communications With Other
`Defendants ................................................................................. 64 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`AVX’s Meetings and Communications With Other Defendants 64 
`
`KEMET’s Meetings and Dealings With Defendant Cartel
`Members .................................................................................... 66 
`
`FMD’s Meetings and Dealings With Cartel Members ................ 71 
`
`G. 
`
`Defendants’ U.S.-Based Subsidiaries Marketed, Sold and Delivered Their
`Defendant Corporate Parents’ Price-Fixed Capacitors in Furtherance of the
`Capacitors Cartel’s Aims and Purposes ..................................................... 71 
`
`1. 
`
`UCC Advanced the Cartel’s Aims and Purposes in the United States for
`Nippon Chemi-Con ............................................................................... 72 
`
`2
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 5 of 119
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`Nichicon America advanced the Cartel’s Aims and Purposes in the United
`States for Nichicon. ................................................................................. 75 
`
`ROHM USA advanced the Cartel’s Aims and Purposes in the United
`States for ROHM ................................................................................... 78 
`
`Okaya America advanced the Cartel’s Aims and Purposes for in the United
`States for Okaya ..................................................................................... 79 
`
`Shinyei America advanced the Cartel’s Aims and Purposes in the United
`States for Shinyei .................................................................................... 81 
`
`Soshin America advanced the Cartel’s Aims and Purposes in the United
`States for Soshin Co. .............................................................................. 83 
`
`H. 
`
`Anticompetitive Effects of Defendants’ Capacitors Cartel ........................ 85 
`
`VII. 
`INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING AND FACILITATING
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSPIRACY ................................................................................ 86 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`Market Concentration ............................................................................... 86 
`
`High Barriers to Entry ............................................................................... 88 
`
`Mutual Interchangeability of Defendants’ Capacitors ................................ 91 
`
`Inelastic Demand ....................................................................................... 91 
`
`Commoditization ...................................................................................... 93 
`
`Weak Demand ........................................................................................... 93 
`
`Excess Manufacturing Capacity ................................................................ 94 
`
`Large Number of Purchasers With Limited Purchasing Power ................. 94 
`
`Ease of Information Sharing Among Defendants ...................................... 95 
`
`VIII.  CURRENT U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST INVESTIGATIONS INTO
`ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN THE CAPACITORS INDUSTRY .............. 97 
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`XI. 
`
`FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT .......................................................................... 100 
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO FLEXTRONICS. ........................... 103 
`
`EFFECTS OF DEFENDANTS’ CONSPIRACY ON U.S. SALES OF ALUMINUM,
`TANTALUM AND FILM CAPACITORS AND INJURY TO THE DIRECT
`PURCHASER CLASS AND FLEXTRONICS............................................................ 106 
`
`XII.  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................ 107 
`
`XIII.  DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT .................................................................................... 109 
`
`3
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 6 of 119
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Chip-Tech, Inc. (“Chip-Tech”), Dependable Component Supply Corp.
`
`(“Dependable”), eIQ Energy, Inc. (“eIQ Energy”) and Walker Component Group, Inc. (“Walker,” and
`
`together with Chip-Tech, Dependable, and eIQ, “Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs”) each bring this action on
`
`behalf of itself and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated (the “Class” or the
`
`“Direct Purchaser Class”), for damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the United
`
`States against defendants Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; SANYO
`
`Electric Co., Ltd.; SANYO North America Corporation; NEC TOKIN Corporation; NEC TOKIN
`
`America, Inc.; KEMET Corporation; KEMET Electronics Corporation; Nippon Chemi-Con
`
`Corporation; United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi AIC Inc.; Hitachi Chemical
`
`Co. America, Ltd.; Fujitsu Ltd.; Nichicon Corporation; Nichicon (America) Corporation; AVX
`
`Corporation; Rubycon Corporation; Rubycon America Inc.; Hidenori Tonouchi; Shuichi Katsuyama;
`
`ELNA Co., Ltd.; ELNA America Inc.; Akio Yokoyama; Shingo Tanaka; Hidetoshi Aono; Matsuo
`
`Electric Co., Ltd.; Kenzaburo Kurata; Takumi Shimizu; TOSHIN KOGYO Co., Ltd.; Holy Stone
`
`Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Milestone Global Technology, Inc. (D/B/A HolyStone International); Vishay
`
`Polytech Co., Ltd.; ROHM Co., Ltd.; ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC; Okaya Electric Industries
`
`Co., Ltd.; Okaya Electric America Inc.; Taitsu Corporation; Taitsu America, Inc.; Shinyei Kaisha;
`
`Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd.; Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd.; Shinyei Corporation of America, Inc.;
`
`Nitsuko Electronics Corporation; Nissei Electric Co., Ltd.; Soshin Electric Co., Ltd.; Soshin
`
`Electronics of America, Inc.; Shizuki Electric Co., Ltd.; (collectively, the “Defendants”).
`
`Plaintiff Flextronics International USA, Inc., on behalf of itself, its subsidiaries, parents, and
`
`affiliated entities, (collectively, “Flextronics”) brings an individual (non-class) action for damages
`
`against Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation; United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi
`
`AIC Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd.; Nichicon Corporation; Nichicon (America)
`
`Corporation; AVX Corporation; Rubycon Corporation; Rubycon America Inc.; ELNA Co., Ltd.; ELNA
`
`America Inc.; Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; TOSHIN KOGYO Co., Ltd.; Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
`
`Milestone Global Technology, Inc. (D/B/A HolyStone International); ROHM Co., Ltd.; ROHM
`
`Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC; Taitsu Corporation; Taitsu America, Inc.; Shinyei Kaisha; Shinyei
`
`Technology Co., Ltd.; Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd.; Shinyei Corporation of America, Inc.; Nissei
`
`4
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 7 of 119
`
`
`
`Electric Co., Ltd.; Soshin Electric Co., Ltd.; Soshin Electronics of America, Inc.; Shizuki Electric Co.,
`
`Ltd.; and American Shizuki Corporation (collectively, the “Flextronics Defendants”).
`
`The factual allegations herein are made jointly with regard to both the Direct Purchaser and
`
`Flextronics except where otherwise noted. Flextronics and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs allege facts
`
`regarding themselves based on personal knowledge, and on information and belief as to all other
`
`matters, as follows:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Both the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Flextronics bring this civil antitrust action
`
`seeking damages for the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in aluminum, tantalum and film
`
`capacitors (together, “Capacitors”) orchestrated by the Defendants—all of which are leading
`
`manufacturers and direct competitors in the global Capacitors industry—at least as early as January 1,
`
`2002 to present (the “Class Period”). The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs also seek injunctive damages and
`
`certification of the class described herein.
`2.
`
`Capacitors are one of the fundamental components found in electrical circuits. All
`
`electronic devices in common use today—from the cheapest household appliances to personal
`
`computers to multi-million dollar computerized machinery—employ various electrical circuits working
`
`in concert to perform their functions. By electrical current (i.e., the aggregate effect of moving electrical
`
`charge) flowing through a circuit, the path for which is usually defined by a printed circuit board
`
`(“PCB”), electronic signals can be amplified, simple and complex computations can be performed, data
`
`can be moved from one place to another, and other tasks can be executed.
`3.
`
`Without the flow of electrical current, circuit boards—as well as the electronic devices
`
`that contain them—will not operate. Accordingly, circuits must not only have a source for current, but
`
`also means for storing and regulating the flow of that current. While either a battery or a connection to
`
`an external power supply typically provides current to a circuit, capacitors are integrated into electrical
`
`circuits primarily to store charge and govern its flow so that the tasks and applications of electrical
`
`devices have sufficiently available and immediately dischargeable electrical charge to perform when
`
`commanded to do so.
`
`5
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 8 of 119
`
`
`
`4.
`
`As society’s dependence on and consumption of technology has grown, so too has the
`
`demand of electronic device manufacturers for the components. Given that capacitors are fundamental
`
`to the operation of practically all electronic devices, the market for capacitors is enormous. Capacitors
`
`are commodity products sold in large volumes. Indeed, global revenues for all manufacturers in the
`
`capacitor industry in 2013 totaled approximately $16 billion based on the sales of trillions of capacitors.
`
`Industry analysts estimate that global revenues from the sale of capacitors will reach over $18 billion for
`
`the fiscal year 2014 and over $20 billion by 2016.
`5.
`
`Capacitors, however, tend to be relatively inexpensive on a per unit basis. The vast
`
`majority of Capacitors cost well under a dollar per unit.
`6.
`
`The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs allege that Capacitors typically cost as little as a fraction
`
`of a cent and that, accordingly, the cost of Capacitors is usually only a relatively small (albeit potentially
`
`significant) part of the overall cost of the products containing them.
`7.
`
`The multi-billion dollar market for capacitors is susceptible to anticompetitive
`
`manipulation. Given, as alleged in detail below, the significant high barriers to entering the already
`
`mature and consolidation-prone capacitors manufacturing industry and achieving the large volume of
`
`sales required to reach sufficient economies of scale and profitability on a per unit basis, global sales of
`
`capacitors are dominated by a limited number of large manufacturers. These would-be competitors—
`
`specifically the Defendants named herein—sell mutually interchangeable commoditized products.
`
`Defendants adjust the prices and market availability of their products in concert and based on an
`
`overarching agreement to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices as described in detail below. These
`
`facts indicate that competition between the global sellers of aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors has
`
`been suppressed as described below.
`8.
`
`Capacitors of like capacitance, dielectric and form factor are generally mutually
`
`interchangeable. Price is therefore the chief differentiation among these products for purchasers.
`
`Accordingly, any agreement among Capacitors manufacturers to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices,
`
`or to reduce the supply of Capacitors, is highly likely to be effective in artificially inflating prices above
`
`those that would prevail in a competitive market to the detriment of purchasers both worldwide and in
`
`the United States.
`
`6
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 9 of 119
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The threat of anticompetitive manipulation for the sales of aluminum, tantalum and film
`
`capacitors is not a hypothetical concern. Defendant Panasonic Corporation, on behalf of itself and its
`
`wholly owned subsidiaries (Panasonic Corporation of North America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., and
`
`SANYO North America Corporation), has admitted to the United States Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”) that Defendants engaged in price fixing at least as early as January 1, 2003, and Defendants’
`
`cartel activities were undertaken for the purpose of artificially maintaining and inflating prices of
`
`aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors sold to United States purchasers and purchasers worldwide.
`
`Records of cartel meetings, however, indicate that Defendants’ conspiracy started as early as 2002.
`10.
`
`Defendants took these unlawful steps because: (1) prior to the outset of the conspiracy,
`
`competition was reducing margins on Capacitors; and (2) demand for certain types of Capacitors began
`
`to wane starting in the early 2000s.
`11.
`
`To bolster the profitability of their respective Capacitors sales, and to slow, negate and
`
`reverse the impact on price caused by declining demand, Defendants agreed prior to the beginning of
`
`the Class Period to curtail price competition among themselves for their respective mutually
`
`interchangeable aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors.
`12.
`
`Given the weak demand for aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors the Defendants
`
`manufactured, and the decline in sales and profits they each were facing across their respective
`
`Capacitors product lines, Defendants further agreed to collusively set prices for all the Capacitors they
`
`produce.
`13.
`
`Accordingly, at least as early as January 1, 2002, Defendants conspired by directly and
`
`indirectly communicating with each other to implement and effectuate an overarching scheme to control
`
`and set the prices of their aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors sold to United States purchasers and
`
`purchasers worldwide. Defendants also agreed, as part of the cartel, to combine and perform the various
`
`acts necessary to achieve the anticompetitive purposes of this scheme, as well as to conceal their activity
`
`from public view and regulatory oversight.
`14.
`
`The Defendants’ conspiracy was furthered and facilitated by a course of anticompetitive
`
`conduct and overt acts, such as making numerous agreements (both written and oral) and reaching
`
`understandings among themselves—largely developed during regular monthly, annual and/or bi-annual
`
`7
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 10 of 119
`
`
`
`meetings among themselves throughout the Class Period—that they would in concert fix, raise,
`
`maintain and stabilize prices for aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors.
`15.
`
`Defendants also agreed to restrain their respective Capacitors manufacturing output
`
`through extending product lead times and other subterfuge.
`16.
`
`As part of the conspiracy alleged herein, and to assist in achieving its ends, Defendants
`
`exchanged amongst themselves nonpublic and commercially sensitive information concerning, among
`
`other things, purchaser-specific Capacitors pricing requests, current industry-specific Capacitors
`
`pricing requests, current and future Capacitors pricing intentions, timing of pricing changes, production
`
`capacity, costs, availability and cost of raw materials, product distribution, and other data that
`
`Defendants used to assist in the implementation and enforcement of their conspiracy.
`17.
`
`Defendants concealed their anticompetitive and unlawful conduct from the public and
`
`their customers, including the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, the Direct Purchaser Class, and Flextronics,
`
`from the inception of the conspiracy until the spring of 2014, when law enforcement and competition
`
`authorities around the globe first publicly acknowledged their respective investigations into
`
`anticompetitive conduct in the capacitors industry.
`18.
`
`Defendants’ cartel has been successful in achieving the anticompetitive and unlawful
`
`ends for which it was formed. Through their concerted actions, Defendants—the dominant players in
`
`the global and U.S. markets for aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors—fixed, raised, maintained
`
`and/or stabilized prices of Capacitors during the entirety of the time that the Defendants’ conspiracy
`
`has existed. Defendants were effective in moderating, negating and reversing the normal competitive
`
`pressures on prices for Capacitors caused by price competition, reduction of demand, technological
`
`change and oversupply.
`19.
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct proximately caused the increase or
`
`slowed the decrease of prices for Capacitors sold to United States and worldwide purchasers during the
`
`Class Period.
`20.
`
`As a result, Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Class allege that they paid artificially
`
`inflated prices for Capacitors. By paying higher prices for Capacitors than those that would have
`
`prevailed in a competitive market, Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Class allege that they have been
`
`8
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 11 of 119
`
`
`
`injured in their business and property and continue to suffer such injuries as a direct and proximate
`
`result of Defendants’ actions.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf
`
`of the Direct Purchaser Class, to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees arising from Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15
`
`U.S.C. § 1), as well as any and all equitable relief afforded them under the federal laws pleaded herein.
`22.
`
`Flextronics brings this action on behalf of itself and its related corporate entities,
`
`including but not limited to its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, to recover damages, including treble
`
`damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees arising from Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of
`
`the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1).
`23.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a) and
`
`Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26).
`24.
`
`Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this judicial district pursuant to Section 12 of the
`
`Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 22), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and (d), because a substantial part of the
`
`events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, a substantial portion of the affected
`
`interstate trade and commerce was carried out in this District, and one or more of the Defendants reside
`
`in this District, is licensed to do business in this District, and/or transacts business in this District.
`25.
`
`In addition, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division is conducting an investigation into the
`
`capacitors industry out of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Northern California. A
`
`federal criminal grand jury has been empaneled in the Northern District of California to hear the DOJ’s
`
`evidence derived from its investigation and ultimately to decide on whether to indict any Capacitors
`
`manufacturers (such as one or more of the Defendants in this antitrust class action) criminally. The
`
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Class allege that the DOJ’s San Francisco-based Capacitors industry
`
`investigation and the empanelment of a grand jury in this District both confirm the propriety of the
`
`Northern District of California as the venue for this antitrust class action.
`26.
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3.2 (c) and (e), assignment of this case to the San Francisco
`
`Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is proper because
`
`9
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 12 of 119
`
`
`
`the interstate trade and commerce involved and affected by Defendants’ violations of the antitrust laws
`
`action was substantially conducted with, directed to or impacted Plaintiffs and members of the Direct
`
`Purchaser Class in counties located within the Division.
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Chip-Tech, Ltd. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 6 Dubon Court, Farmingdale, New York 11735. Chip-Tech directly purchased Capacitors
`
`from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered injury as a result of Defendants’
`
`anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Dependable Component Supply Corporation is a Florida corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 1003 East Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442.
`
`Dependable directly purchased Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and
`
`has suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`29.
`
`Plaintiff eIQ Energy, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`294 Brokaw Road, Santa Clara, California 95050. eIQ Energy directly purchased certain types of
`
`Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered injury as a result of
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Walker Component Group, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at 420 East 58th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80216. Walker directly purchased
`
`Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period, and has suffered injury as a result of
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`B.
`
`Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc.
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc. (“Flextronics”) is a California corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 6201 America Center Drive, San Jose, California 95002.
`
`Flextronics manufactures electronic products and other goods at locations around the world, including
`
`in the United States. Flextronics directly purchases Capacitors for the purpose of manufacturing
`
`electronic products for United States-based customers and by United States end-users. Flextronics’s
`
`products are sold for consumer, medical, automotive, aerospace, and defense applications, among
`
`10
`CONSOLIDATED FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`COMPLAINT OF FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02801-JD Document 18-4 Filed 01/26/18 Page 13 of 119
`
`
`
`others. Flextronics directly purchased Capacitors from one or more Defendants during the Class Period,
`
`and has suffered injury as a result of the Flextronics Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
`
`Flextronics brings its action against the Flextronics Defendants individually, not in a representative
`
`capacity on behalf of the putative class alleged by the Direct Purchaser class herein.
`C.
`
`Defendants
`
`1.
`
`Panasonic/SANYO
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 1006, Oaza Kadoma, Kadoma-shi, Osaka 571-8501, Japan. Until October 1, 2008,
`
`Panasonic Corporation operated under the name of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Matsushita”). During the Class Period, Matsushita and Panasonic (together, “Panasonic Corp.”)
`
`manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors either directly or through its
`
`business units, subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to United States purchasers.
`33.
`
`Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North Ame