Capacitor-Makers Guilty of Price-Fixing Conspiracy, Says Class-Action Complaint

A who’s-who list of manufacturers of aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors and their subsidiaries "engaged in at least a five-year conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of capacitors" in the U.S., alleged a class-action complaint filed by Quathimatine Holdings, a Texas City, Texas, firm that does business as Divicom USA. Quathimatine is a terminal and pipeline equipment company that bought capacitors from one or more or the defendants and was "injured" as a result of their "anticompetitive conduct," said the complaint, which was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California. "Capacitors are found in nearly every electronic product on the market in a wide variety of industries, including consumer products (audio and visual), telecommunications, automotive, computer, and industrial equipment," the complaint said. "Sometimes hundreds of Capacitors can be found in a single electronic device. For example, Apple iPhone 4s and iPads have 469 and 702 capacitors, respectively. Given their necessity in nearly every electrical device, the global market for capacitors is large -- estimated to be $18.25 billion in 2014 and projected to continue growing." Several "macroeconomic factors support the birth of the conspiracy" to fix prices beginning in 2009, "as well as its continuation through the present," the complaint said. "These factors include: the negative effects on business due to the global economic recession; increased raw material costs; technological innovations; and increased competition from other cheaper forms of capacitors produced by aggressive Taiwanese, South Korean, and Chinese manufacturers." The defendants "accomplished their price-fixing conspiracy through, among other things, meetings and the exchange of confidential information regarding pricing, costs, manufacturing and supply issues," it said. "The purpose of these secret, conspiratorial meetings, discussions, and communications was to ensure that all Defendants agreed to participate in and implement an unlawful, continuing price-fixing scheme." Named as defendants were AVX, Elna, Hitachi Chemical, Kemet, Matsuo, NEC-Tokin, Nichicon, Nippon Chemi-Con, Panasonic, Rohm, Rubycon, Samsung, Sanyo, Taiyo-Yuden, Toshin Kogyo, United Chemi-Con and Vishay Intertechnology. Of those we canvassed for reaction to the complaint, only Panasonic spokesman Jim Reilly responded Sunday by email to say: "The matter involves ongoing litigation, so it would not be appropriate for us to comment on it."