Top Legal Issues Facing Suppliers in 2014: Antitrust

27 February 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

More Guilty Pleas in U.S. Department of Justice Auto Parts Probe

High on the Foley & Lardner LLP priority list of top antitrust issues facing automotive suppliers for 2014 was the broad and aggressive criminal antitrust investigation of the auto parts industry by the U.S. Department of Justice. As Foley reported then, the wide-ranging investigation had by the end of 2013 snared 24 companies and 26 individuals. Fines totaling more than $1.6 billion dollars in fines and substantial jail time for the individuals, many foreign nationals who had been convicted are serving substantial jail time.

The Department of Justice promised that this investigation would continue unabated and indeed it has. During the month of February 2014, two more companies agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to fix prices of auto parts. On February 3, 2014 Aisan Industries Co., Inc. pled guilty to fixing the prices of electronic throttle bodies sold to Nissan Motors Co. Ltd. in the United States and elsewhere. Aisan, a Japanese-based company, agreed to pay $6.86 million. Less than two weeks later, Bridgestone Corp., another Japanese-based company, agreed as well to plead guilty and pay a substantial fine in the amount of $425 million for fixing the price of automotive anti-vibration rubber parts that it sold to a number of Japanese OEM including Toyota, Nissan, Suzuki, and Isuzu. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, these were hard-core cartels lasting upwards of a decade. With these guilty pleas, total U.S. fines imposed in the on-going auto parts probe exceed $2 billion.

And the investigations continue. The U.S. Department of Justice has made it clear that there are more enforcement actions to come as it uses its leniency and leniency plus policies to widen the net of suspected criminal activity. Under these policies, there are ever-increasing incentives for companies to disclose what appears to be an apparent unending stream of industry groups that have engaged in criminal cartel activity.

Keep in mind that in addition to the substantial criminal penalties that have been imposed and the significant incarceration that has been meted out to almost 30 individuals, there are massive treble damages actions that have been filed seeking compensation for the damages alleged resulting from the inflated pricing resulting from such conspiracy. The effect of the guilty pleas is to provide a prima facie case for the treble damage plaintiffs. These cases which have been consolidated in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan (in re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation) involve almost 30 types of auto parts.

Moreover, the U.S. criminal and civil litigations are only one of a multitude of global investigations of the auto parts industry. In addition to the U.S. investigation, there have long been investigations in the EU, Japan, Canada and Korea. In the latest development, the Chinese government announced on February 19, 2014 that the Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission was conducting its own investigation.

Take Action Now

So what should automobile suppliers do? As Foley has said before, there is no excuse for this spiral of activity. You and your company need to make compliance and compliance audits a No. 1 priority.

A well-organized and thoughtfully implemented compliance policy is an important initiative. Take action now before your company is the target of this on-going investigation. Or, for that matter, take compliance action now to detect and ward off any other antitrust problems that may be uncovered. An effective competition compliance program can hopefully avoid the criminal cartel activity from occurring and, in any event, will help reduce the sanctions that would be imposed if, despite the company’s best efforts, a problem arises.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ