Cartel damages claims proceedings are complex, time-consuming and cost-intensive. Calculating and proving damages claims usually requires a considerable effort and a broad set of data.

Your main benefits of a collaboration with us are:

1. Experienced experts – The damages claims will be enforced by the leading law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, whose attorneys are specialized in antitrust damages claims. Additionally, recognized and renowned competition economists will provide a court-proof damages estimate. The litigation funder Deminor is a leading funder in the field of cartel damages claims.

2. Modern IT - Through a fully digitalized data collection and administration process, we offer a seamless and state-of-the-art approach to prepare court-proof evidence of your damages.

3. No costs - You bear no costs for the enforcement of your claims. In the case of direct purchasing of your damages claims, you will receive an immediate payout. In the case of a litigation funding agreement, the litigation funder only receives a success fee if your claims are successfully enforced. The litigation funder bears all costs of data preparation, economic expertise and legal proceedings, regardless of the outcome of the enforcement. There is no recourse if your claims are not enforced successfully.

The European Commission's fining decision is legally binding for courts with regard to the violation of antitrust law. Hence, the cartel members cannot dispute the existence of a cartel.

Generally, competition authorities do not determine or publish information of the level of damages caused by illegal cartel agreements. Hence, the damaged parties are required to prove the quantum of damages caused by the cartel.

Therefore, specialized competition economists must estimate the level of damages. In the case of the capacitor cartel, we work with experienced competition economists that will evaluate the quantum of your damages claims.

Empiric economic research has shown that price-fixing agreements usually lead to a significant cartel-related overcharge with a median of 23%.[1]

In the capacitor cartel, initial economic estimates have determined an overcharge of up to 19% of the purchase price.[2]

[1] Connor (2014) Price-Fixing Overcharges: Revised 3rd edition, Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400780

[2] The estimation stems from an expert opinion issued in a civil antitrust damages procedure in the U.S. pertaining to the same anticompetitive conduct of the cartel participants. Source: U.S. District Court of Northern District of California, Case No 14-3264 (Flextronics' action); MDL Dkt. No. 652, p. 2 et seq. See here.

There is a risk that your claims may become time-barred. Immediate action is therefore required.

There are different legal possibilities to bundle damage claims from a large number of claimants in Germany. Depending on the specifics of the case, the lawyers will choose the most suitable model.

Capacitor purchases from June 1998 until the December 2014 are most likely adversely affected by the illegal cartel agreements.

There are three types of capacitors: 1. electrolytic, 2. film and 3. ceramic capacitors. The European Commission explicitly fined anticompetitive price agreements for electrolytic capacitors. To which extent film and ceramic capacitors may also have been affected by the agreement will be subject of an economic analysis.

Electrolytic capacitors include aluminum electrolytic capacitors ("AEC"), tantalum electrolytic capacitors ("TEC"), and niobium electrolytic capacitors ("NEC"). According to the European Commission, niobium electrolytic capacitors ("NEC") were not explicitly affected by the cartel. AEC include radial and single-ended AEC, axial-type AEC, snap-in terminal AEC and screw terminal AEC. AECs are mainly used in electrical components, e.g. wind turbines, washing machines, computers, air conditioners, refrigerators and automotive supply to only name a few.

Tantalum electrolytic capacitors include surface-mount TEC, axial TEC, and dipped style TEC. These capacitors are mainly used in surface-mount devices (“SMD”), e.g. in laptops, tablets and smartphones.

The cartel members were among the world's leading manufacturers of capacitors:

• Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd

• Hitachi Chemical Company, Ltd.

• Rubycon Corporation

• NEC Tokin/ Tokin Corporation

• Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation

• Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd.

• Matsuo Electric Co.,Ltd

• Elna Co., Ltd.

• Nichicon Corporation

As the whistleblower, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. received full immunity from fines as a reward for cooperating with the European Commission. However, immunity from fines does not imply immunity from liabilities for incurred damages.

Please also contact us if you have purchased electrolytic capacitors from other manufacturers or third parties. Depending on the specifics of the case, you may have suffered damages by overpaying for these electrolytic capacitors. In this case, your company is likely entitled to enforce its damages claims vis-à-vis the cartel members.

No. We support you in enforcing your damages claims by offloading legal risks, taking on all project management as well as legal and economic assessment and thereby accelerating the return of your legal assets relating to the capacitor cartel.

In particular we will

• support you in preparing the data required to enforce your claims (data preparation),

• coordinate with lawyers and competition economists to quantify your damages claims, and

• bear all costs of data preparation, economic expertise, and legal proceedings.

To substantiate a claim will require proof that you have indeed purchased capacitors affected by the cartel. There are numerous ways to prove the purchasing of capacitors, e.g. purchasing agreements, order confirmations, invoices or similar documents. Depending on the specifics of the case, we may additionally require payment documents. If relevant documents, e.g. invoices or order confirmations, are no longer available, we will evaluate the usage of digital ERP statements and accounting data in coordination with you.

As of today, anticompetitive agreements have been fined by at least seven antitrust authorities: Brazil, European Union, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. The different decisions coincide in important structural characteristics of the cartel agreements and the market for capacitors. For example, the cartel members, the affected products, and the nature of the anti-competitive agreements are mostly identical. The infringement periods of the different decisions are also largely consistent.

Read the press release on the European Commission’s decision dated March 21, 2018 here and the Commission's decision dated March 21, 2018 here.

Read the press release on the European Court decisions dated September 29, 2021 here.

Press release:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_2281

Commission Decision:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases1/202142/AT_40136_7970992_6095_3.pdf

Press release:

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-09/cp210164en.pdf

If your company has purchased capacitors from the cartel members in other jurisdictions during the infringement period, your company may have suffered further damages. Depending on the specifics of the case, we can offer a litigation funding agreement for the enforcement of damage claims in other jurisdictions. Please contact us to discuss and evaluate your specific situation.