Settlement Structure: Claims Made
Active: OpenCase Summary:
A large antitrust case against makers of capacitors has so far resulted in settlements totaling $80.5 million. The complaint alleged that makers conspired to raise and fix the prices of capacitors over a period of more than ten years, thus violating antitrust laws and making customers pay more for capacitors than they should have.
Settlements have been reached now with defendants ELNA Co., Ltd. and ELNA America, Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi AIC Inc., and Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd.; Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd., Holy Stone Holdings Co., Ltd., Holy Stone Polytech Co., Ltd., and Milestone Global Technology, Inc.; Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; Nippon Chemi-Con Corp. and United Chemi-Con, Inc.; NEC TOKIN Corp. and NEC TOKIN America, Inc.; Nichicon Corporation and Nichicon (America) Corporation; Nitsuko Electronics Corporation; Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd.; Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., and SANYO Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation; Rubycon Corp. and Rubycon America, Inc.; and Soshin Electric Co., Ltd. and Soshin Electronics Of America, Inc.
Still involved in the litigation are the non-settling defendants, including Nissei Electric Co., Ltd., Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., Taitsu Corp., and Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd.Docket Number:
Company: Panasonic Corporation
Filing Deadline: March 23, 2020
Class Period: January 1, 2002 to February 28, 2014
Objection Deadline: December 23, 2019
Exclusion Deadline: December 23, 2019
Final Approval Hearing: January 23, 2020Proof of Purchase:
If you received a settlement notice with a purchase amount, and you accept that amount as your total purchase amount, then you do not need to submit proof of purchase. If you did not receive a notice with a purchase amount or if you do not agree with the amount, you must submit proof for your own figures.Eligibility:
You may be eligible if you bought electrolytic and film capacitors, from a distributor or other entity who is not a defendant in this case, but where a defendant was the maker of the capacitors, between January 1, 2002 and February 28, 2014. However, many separate class have been defined for this action, with different class periods, depending on the settlement reached with the individual capacitor maker. Please see the individual notices at https://www.capacitorsindirectcase.com/Home/Notice for specific details.
Payments will be made only to class members who made their purchases in a state that permits indirect-purchaser antitrust claims, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.Typical Settlement Amount:
Proportionate share of net settlement funds, depending on the total amount of your purchases and the total amount of all valid claims combined.
Total Settlement Amount: $80.5 millionClass Representative Proposed Incentive Fee:
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
Case Name: In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation – All Indirect Purchaser Actions
Settlement Website: Antitrust Capacitor Indirect Purchaser Settlement Website
AB Data, Ltd.
Capacitors Indirect Case
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 173020
Milwaukee, WI 53217