Free Exhibits - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 1 of 75 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California THOMAS GREENE 2 Chief Assistant Attorney General KATHLEEN E. FOOTE 3 Senior Assistant Attorney General Q91G /N4 State Bar No. 65819 P/4 ,eo 4 4 EMILIO E. VARANINI /114? 6 Deputy Attorney General 5 State Bar No. 163952 00/ 300 S. Spring Street AIpRTti^^q,p^kfr/ 6 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230 TR^C TpFC coo9T Telephone: (415) 703-5908 7 Fax: (415) 703-5480 filing Email: [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER AND THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO EX REL DENNIS J. HERRERA, THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Case o.: COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

J

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2589

THE STATE OF ALASKA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL TALIS J. COLBERG; 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded 1

THE STATE OF ARIZONA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL TERRY GODDARD; THE STATE OF ARKANSAS BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL DUSTIN MCDANIEL; THE STATE OF COLORADO BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN W. SUTHERS; THE STATE OF DELAWARE BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSEPH R. BIDEN III AND ALL STATE AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL MCCOLLUM;

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH Document 6 Filed 05/22/2007 THE STATE OF HAWAII BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK J. BENNETT; 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 THE STATE OF IDAHO BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE G. WADSEN; THE STATE OF ILLINOIS BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN; THE STATE OF IOWA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS J. MILLER; THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, GREGORY D. STUMBO; THE STATE OF LOUISIANA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.; THE STATE OF MAINE BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL G. STEVEN ROWE; THE STATE OF MARYLAND BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MARTHA COAKLEY; THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL A. COX; THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL LORI SWANSON; THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM 'HOOD; THE STATE OF NEBRASKA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL JON BRUNING; THE STATE OF NEVADA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL KELLY A. AYOTTE; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL STUART RABNER THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL GARY K. KING AND THE COUNTY OF SANDOVAL ON BEHALF Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded 2

Page 2 of 75

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 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

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 3 of 75

OF ALL OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL ROY COOPER; THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAYNE STENEHJEM; THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MATTHEW T. GREGORY; THE STATE OF OHIO BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MARC DANN; THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL DREW EDMONDSON AND ALL STATE AGENCIES SIMILARLY SITUATED; THE STATE OF OREGON BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL HARDY MYERS; THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ON BEHALF OF ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND STATE AGENCIES SIMILARLY SITUATED; THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND BY PATRICK C. LYNCH IN HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL; THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL HENRY MCMASTER; THE STATE OF TENNESSEE BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL PAUL G. SUMMERS; THE STATE OF TEXAS BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT; THE STATE OF UTAH BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK L. SHURTLEFF; THE STATE OF VERMONT BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM H. SORRELL; THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT F. MCDONNELL ON BEHALF OF ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND STATE
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

3

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 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 1. v. AGENCIES;

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 4 of 75

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB MCKENNA; THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR.; THE STATE OF WISCONSIN BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL J.B. VAN HOLLEN; THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL LARRY LONG; THE DISTRICT OF. COLUMBIA BY ITS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, LINDA SINGER; THE STATE OF MISSOURI BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH (JAY) W. NIXON; THE STATE OF MONTANA BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE MCGRATH; THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Plaintiffs,

WINBOND ELECTRONICS. CO., Defendant.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE This complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. §1. It is filed

under, and jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by, sections 4, 4C, 12 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 15c, 22 and 26. The Plaintiffs also allege violations of State antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition and related laws, and seek damages, restitution, civil penalties, and/or other equitable relief under those State laws. All claims under federal and state law are based upon a common nucleus of operative facts, and the entire action commenced
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

4

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 5 of 75

by this Complaint constitutes a single case that would ordinarily be tried in one judicial

2 proceeding. 3 4 2. The Court further has jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1337. The Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

5 because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 3. Venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391

because the Defendant resides, transacts business, committed an illegal or tortious act, or is found in this District, within the meaning and scope of 15 U.S.C. § 22, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10 11 12 1672 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c), and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims arose in this District. 4. The activities of the Defendant and its co-conspirators, as described herein, were

13 within the flow of, were intended to, and did have a substantial effect on, the foreign and 14 interstate commerce of the United States. 15 16 DEFINITIONS 5. Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") means the semiconductor memory

17 chip providing high-speed storage and retrieval of electronic information for electronic devices, 18 such as personal computers and servers (hereinafter "DRAM-containing products"), around the 19 world. These high-speed memory chips are used to store data in a wide variety of computing and 20 other electronic devices while the device is in operation. DRAM includes, but is not limited to 21 DRAM, Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory ("SDRAM") and Double Data Rate

22 Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DDR") chips. DDR & SDRAM chips are high-speed, high23 performance types of DRAM chips. "Random Access Memory" means that the data, stored in 24 the form of Os and 1s, can be accessed directly from any part of the memory, rather than having 25 to proceed sequentially from some starting place. DRAM is called "dynamic" because it must 26 have its storage cells refreshed or given a new electronic charge every few milliseconds. 27 6. "Political subdivisions" means counties, cities, towns, K-12 school districts, public

28 undergraduate and graduate educational institutions, and other government units, entities, and
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

5

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 6 of 75

instrumentalities, that are autonomous or independent from the State itself under the Eleventh

2 Amendment or otherwise treated as being autonomous from the State itself, as well as all 3 electric, utility, water, sewer, fire, port authority and other special districts and tax-supported

4 institutions that are either autonomous or independent from the State itself under the Eleventh 5 Amendment or otherwise treated as being autonomous from the State itself, where state law 6 permits such to be represented by the Attorney General of a State, all as provided in the 7 applicable state laws of the respective Plaintiff States. 8 7. "State agencies" means all departments, divisions, boards, councils, committees,

.9 institutions, agencies, offices of a State, public undergraduate and graduate educational 10 institutions, and other government units, entities, and instrumentalities, that either constitute an 11 arm of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes or are not otherwise treated under state law as being autonomous from the State itself, all as provided in the applicable state laws of the respective Plaintiff States. THE PARTIES The Plaintiffs 8. Plaintiffs bring this action by and through their Attorneys General. For purposes of 17 this Complaint, the term "Plaintiffs" as used herein means the named plaintiffs and class 18 representatives and the natural persons, state agencies, political subdivisions and/or businesses 19 located within their states who the named plaintiffs represent in this action pursuant to applicable 20 state and federal laws governing representation by Attorneys General as alleged below. Pursuant 21 to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certain Plaintiffs assert a

22 class action as further described below insofar as they represent state agencies and political 23 subdivisions located in their states in a class. capacity that were indirect or direct purchasers of

24 DRAM. Regardless of the representative capacities in which the Plaintiff States, by and through 25 their Attorneys General, file this action on behalf of the aforementioned groups pursuant to their 26 state laws, the issues of liability, impact, damages, and defenses are common to all of these 27 groups. 28
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants 6

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 9.

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 7 of 75

Defendant Winbond Electronics Corporation is a business entity organized under

2 the laws of Taiwan, with its principal place of business at 4, Creation Road 3, Science-Based 3 Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. During the time period covered by this Complaint,

4 Defendant Winbond Electronic Corporation (hereinafter "Winbond Taiwan") manufactured, sold 5 6 7 and distributed DRAM to customers throughout the United States. Co-conspirators 10. Co-conspirator Micron Technology, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its

8 principal place of business at 8000 South Federal Way, Boise, Idaho. During the time period 9 covered by this Complaint, Micron Technology, Inc., manufactured, sold and distributed DRAM

10 throughout the United States. I1 11. Co-conspirator Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., is a wholly owned and

12 controlled subsidiary of Defendant Micron Technology, Inc., with its principal place of business 13 at 8000 South Federal Way, Boise, Idaho. During the time period covered by this Complaint,

14 Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., sold and distributed DRAM to customers throughout the 15 United States, including sales through its Crucial Technology division. Micron Technology, Inc., 16 Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and the Crucial Technology division are referred to 17 collectively herein as "Micron." 18 12. Co-Conspirator Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is a business entity organized under

19 the laws of South Korea, with its principal place of business at Samsung Main Building 250-2 ga, 20 Taepyung-ro Chung-gu, Seoul, Korea. During the time period covered by this Complaint, Co21 Conspirator Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. manufactured, sold and distributed DRAM to

22 customers throughout the United States. 23 13. Co-Conspirator Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. is a wholly owned and controlled

24 subsidiary of Co-Conspirator Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. with its principal place of business at 25 26 3655 North First Street, San Jose, California. During the time period covered by this Complaint, Co-Conspirator Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. sold and distributed DRAM to customers

27 throughout the United States. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. 28 are referred to collectively herein as "Samsung."
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

7

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3 4 5

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 8 of 75

14. Other Co-Conspirators 1-10, presently unknown to Plaintiffs, participated as coconspirators with the Defendants in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint and have engaged in conduct and made statements in furtherance thereof. 15. The acts charged in this Complaint have been done by Defendant and its coconspirators, or were authorized, ordered or done by its respective officers, agents, employees or

6 representatives while actively engaged in the management of Defendant's business or affairs. 7 8 9 TRADE AND COMMERCE 16. Defendant makes DRAM, both commodity DRAM that is interchangeable and specialty DRAM that is custom-ordered to meet customer specifications, for incorporation into

10 products that are imported into the United States. A substantial percentage of those products 11 containing DRAM sold by the Defendants, such as hard drives, are sold in California or are

12 incorporated into other products, such as computers, sold in California and elsewhere in the 13 14 15 16 17 United States. DEFENDANTS' ILLEGAL CONDUCT 17. Defendant and its co-conspirators engaged in a contract, combination, trust, or conspiracy to exchange pricing information regarding the sale of, or the negotiation of sales contracts concerning, DRAM in Singapore to hard drive manufacturers, such as Seagate

18 Technology, Inc., and Maxtor Corp., which would then incorporate that DRAM into their 19 products. 20 21 22 23 18. The information was exchanged through frequent communications between the Defendant, or its agents, in Singapore and the co-conspirators. 19. The information so exchanged was used by the Defendant and its co-conspirators in formulating price negotiation strategy and/or in negotiating prices for the sale of DRAM to these

24 hard drive manufacturers. Insofar as the co-conspirators are concerned, the contract, combination, 25 trust, or conspiracy alleged above took place as part of a more extensive contract, combination,

26 trust, or conspiracy alleged in the Plaintiff States' First Amended Complaint, filed in State of 27 28 California et. al. v. Infineon Technologies et. al., Case No. 06 4333 PJH. I EAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

8

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 9 of 75

20. From approximately 1998 to June of 2002, Defendant and its Co-conspirators

2 effectively, affirmatively, and fraudulently concealed their unlawful combination and conspiracy 3 4 5 6 from Plaintiffs. 21. Defendant and its Co-conspirators engaged in a successful, illegal price-fixing conspiracy that by its nature was inherently self-concealing. 22. Defendant's and its Co-conspirators' wrongful conduct was carried out in part

7 through means and methods that were designed and intended to avoid detection, including 8 numerous telephone calls and in person meetings among the conspirators and which, in fact, 9 successfully precluded detection. Plaintiffs could not have discovered their unlawful scheme and 10 conspiracy earlier because of their effective, affirmative, and fraudulent concealment of their 11 12 13 activities. 23. Defendant and its Co-conspirators communicated to their United States entities false reasons to explain price increases, such as seasonal ebb and flow and restriction in output,

14 and instructed them to use these false reasons with U.S. customers. Plaintiffs are informed and 15 believe that Defendants and their Co-conspirators communicated said reasons to OEMs who 16 inquired as to the reason for price increases. 17 24. Plaintiffs have exercised due diligence by promptly investigating the facts giving

18 rise to the claims asserted herein upon having reasonable suspicion of the existence of 19 Defendant's and its Co-conspirators conspiracy to the extent permitted by law. 20 21 INJURY 25. But for Defendant's and their Co-conspirators' anticompetitive acts, Plaintiffs

22 would have been able to purchase DRAM and DRAM-containing products at lower prices. 23 26. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct alleged above, the

24 Plaintiffs were not able to purchase DRAM or DRAM-containing products at prices that were 25 26 determined by free and open competition. Consequently, they have been injured in their business and property in that, inter alia, they have paid more and continue to pay more for such products

27 than they would have paid in a free and open, competitive market. 28 27. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct alleged above, the
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

9

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 10 of 75

Defendant's and its Co-conspirators have unjustly benefited from the supra-competitive and

2 artificially inflated prices, and profits on their sale of DRAM products resulting from their 3 4 5 6 unlawful and inequitable conduct, and have thus far retained the illegally obtained profits. UNJUST ENRICHMENT 28. Defendant's financial benefits resulting from their unlawful and inequitable conduct are economically traceable to overpayments for DRAM and DRAM-containing products

7 by Plaintiffs. 8 9 29. Plaintiffs have conferred upon Defendant an economic benefit, in the nature of anti-competitive profits resulting from unlawful overcharges and monopoly profits, to the

10 economic detriment of the States and consumers. 11 30. The economic benefit of overcharges and unlawful monopoly profits derived by

12 Defendant through charging supra-competitive and artificially inflated prices for DRAM is a 13 14 direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful practices. 31. It would be inequitable and unjust for Defendant to be permitted to retain any of

15 the unlawful proceeds resulting from their fraudulent, illegal, and inequitable conduct. 16 17 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 32. Certain Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the

18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Class pursuant to state and federal 19 laws governing representation by Attorneys General: a Class of state agencies and political 20 subdivisions, excluding federal government entities, in certain Plaintiff States that purchased 21 DRAM directly or indirectly from approximately 1998 to December of 2002, to the extent that

22 the entities in said classes are not covered by either the Attorneys General acting in their parens 23 patriae capacities or their proprietary/sovereign capacities and to the extent that a given state law 24 permits such a class. This Class suffered damages due to Defendant's and its Co-conspirators' 25 acts that, with trebling provisions applicable pursuant to the relevant state laws, amount to $5

26 million or more. 27 33. Plaintiff States who are members of the above-described Class and acting as class

28 representatives such as Alaska, Delaware, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, and other class
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

10

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 11 of 75

representatives such as the City and County of San Francisco, County of Santa Clara, Los

2 Angeles Unified School District, and County of Sandoval, New Mexico, may sue on behalf of the 3 4 5 Class because: a. This Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class of state agencies and political subdivisions numbers in the hundreds in Plaintiff States such as Alaska and California. The exact number and identities of members in this Class are currently unknown to Plaintiff States. b. Questions of law and fact are common to the Class, including but not limited to the following: 10 11 12 (i) whether Defendant and its Co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, stabilize or maintain the prices of DRAM for hard drives in Singapore; (ii) whether Defendant's and its Co-conspirators' conduct caused injury to the

13 business or property of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class; 14 15 16 17 18 (iii) the operative time period of Defendant's and its Co-conspirators' conspiracy and the effects wherefrom; (iv) the amount of aggregate damages suffered by the Class as a whole; (v) whether the Class suffered antitrust injury; (vi) whether Defendant and its Co-conspirators were unjustly enriched to the

19 detriment of the Class entitling Plaintiff States and the Class to disgorgement of all monies 20 resulting therefrom; and 21 (vii) whether the Class is entitled to restitution and/or disgorgement, in addition

.22 to or as a substitute for damages, under applicable state laws. 23 c. Plaintiff States and their class representatives' claims are typical of the Class

24 because Plaintiff States and all members of the Class were injured, and may continue to be 25 injured, in the same manner by Defendant's and its Co-conspirators' unlawful, anti-competitive 26 and inequitable methods, acts and practices, i.e., they have paid supra-competitive and artificially

27 high prices for DRAM and DRAM-containing products, i.e., hard drives, and may be forced to 28 do so in the future. The defenses would involve common issues with respect to the Plaintiff
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

11

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 12 of 75

States and their class representatives and each class member. d. Plaintiff States and their class representatives will fully and adequately protect the interest of all members of the Class. Plaintiff States' counsel are experienced in antitrust litigation, including class action litigation. Plaintiff States have no interests that are adverse to or 5 6 7 8 9 in conflict with those of the Class. e. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions that may affect only individual members. f. For those Plaintiff States and class representatives bringing this as a class action, a class action is equivalent or superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

10 adjudication of this controversy. Joinder of all state agency and political subdivision purchasers 11 of DRAM and DRAM-containing products would be impracticable. The Class is readily

12 definable and prosecution as a class action will eliminate the possibility of duplicative litigation, 13 while also providing redress for claims that would otherwise be too small to support the expense

14 of individual complex litigation. 15 16 17 18 19 VIOLATIONS ALLEGED First Claim for Relief (Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act) (Count One - All Plaintiff States - Injunction) 34. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege, as though fully set forth herein, each and every

.20 allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 21 35. Beginning at a time presently unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least on or around 1998

22 and continuing through at least June 30, 2002, the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiffs, 23 Defendant and its Co-conspirators entered into a continuing agreement, understanding, and 24 conspiracy in restraint of trade to exchange and use DRAM pricing information for certain 25 customers in Singapore knowing or having reason to know that said DRAM would be

26 incorporated into products exported to the United States, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman 27 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 28 36. In formulating and carrying out the alleged agreement, understanding, and
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

12

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 13 of 75

conspiracy, the Defendant and its Co-conspirators did those things that they combined and

2 conspired to do. 3 37. The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had the following effects

4 among others: 5 6 eliminated; 7 b. Prices for DRAM sold by Defendant and its Co-conspirators have been fixed, a. Price competition in the sale of DRAM has been restrained, suppressed, and/or

8 raised, maintained and stabilized at artificially high, non-competitive levels; and 9 c. Those who purchased DRAM directly or indirectly from Defendant and its Co-

10 conspirators have been deprived of the benefits of free and open competition. 11 38. Plaintiffs who purchase significant volumes of DRAM and DRAM-containing

12 products have been injured, and will continue to be injured, in their business and property by 13 having paid more for DRAM purchased directly and indirectly from the Defendants and its Co14 conspirators than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the combination and 15 conspiracy, including paying more for hard drives, and products using hard drives, in which

16 DRAM is a component as a result of higher prices paid for DRAM by the manufacturers of those 17 products, and by the potential future deprivation of competition arising from the failure of . 18 Defendant and its Co-conspirators to discontinue the wrongful conduct until Grand Jury 19 Subpoenas were issued. 20 21 39. As a result of each of the illegal contracts, combinations, and conspiracies alleged above, consumers in the States represented by Plaintiffs have sustained injury to their property

22 and will continue to be injured in their property by having paid more for DRAM purchased 23 directly and indirectly from the Defendants and their Co-conspirators than they would have paid

24 and will pay in the absence of the combination and conspiracy, including paying more for 25 personal computers, servers, and other products in which DRAM is a component as a result of 26 higher prices paid for DRAM by the manufacturers of those products, and by the potential future 27 deprivation of competition arising from the failure of Defendants and their Co-conspirators to 28 discontinue the wrongful conduct until Grand Jury Subpoenas were issued, and from the repeated
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded 13

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 14 of 75

attempts of Defendants and their Co-conspirators to further stabilize the aforementioned price-

2 fixing conspiracy by limiting or curtailing supply or market share. 3 40. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against Defendant, preventing and

4 restraining the violations alleged herein. 5 6 7 Second Claim for Relief Violations of State Law 41. Each of the States below realleges and incorporates as to each count below all of

8 the allegations above. Each of the States alleges that the actions of the Defendant as set forth 9 above constitutes a violation or violations of those state laws that are pled below as to each State 10. and pleads the violations of state laws set out below as an alternative to or in addition to any 11 12 13 violations of federal law pled above by them. (Count One - Alaska) 42. Defendant's acts as described above had the purpose and effect of suppressing

14 competition in the sale of DRAM in the State of Alaska and elsewhere, and had a substantial and 15 adverse impact on prices for DRAM or DRAM-containing products in Alaska. These acts 16 violate Alaska's Monopolies and Restraint of Trade Act, AS 45.50.562 et seq. In addition, these 17 acts were unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of 18 Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, AS 45.50.471 et seq. 19 43. Defendant's acts have caused substantial injury and damage to the State of Alaska,

20 state agencies and political subdivisions in Alaska, and natural persons doing business or residing 21 22 23 in Alaska. 44. Plaintiff State of Alaska, for itself and as parens patriae on behalf of state agencies and political subdivisions in Alaska or natural persons doing business or residing in Alaska, is

24 entitled to monetary relief for injuries indirectly suffered by said natural persons by reason of the 25 violations alleged above. 26 45. Plaintiff State of Alaska, for itself and as parens patriae on behalf of state agencies

27 and political subdivisions in Alaska or natural persons doing business or residing in Alaska, is 28 entitled to three times the total damage sustained as a result of the conduct described above, plus
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

14

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 15 of 75

costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 46. Pursuant to AS 45.50.551, Plaintiff State of Alaska, for itself and as parens patriae on behalf of state agencies and political subdivisions in Alaska or natural persons doing business

4 or residing in Alaska, is entitled to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation described 5 6 7 8 above. (Count Two- Arizona) 47. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Arizona on behalf of itself, its state agencies, and pursuant to A.R. S. § 41-192(A)(5) on behalf of its political subdivisions, its

9 municipalities, its school districts, and as parens patriae on behalf of its natural persons is 10 entitled to relief under Arizona's Uniform State Antitrust Act, A.R.S. § 44-1401 et seq. 11 12 13 (Count Three - Arkansas) 48. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Arkansas is entitled to relief for itself, its state agencies, and its natural persons, under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices

14 Act, Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-101 et seq. as well the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act, Ark. Code 15 Aim. § 4-75-301 et seq. 16 17 (Count Four - California) 49. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of California is entitled to relief on

18 behalf of itself, its state agencies, its natural persons, and its class of political subdivisions, who 19 were indirect purchasers of DRAM or DRAM-containing products under the Cartwright Act, 20 California Business & Professions Code sections 16720 et seq., and the Unfair Competition Law, 21 California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., including civil penalties to the

22 maximum extent permitted by law pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 23 24 25 26 27 28
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

section 17206 et seq. (Count Five - Colorado) 50. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Colorado on behalf of itself and its state agencies is entitled to relief under, the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992, §§ 6-4-101, et seq., Colo. Rev. Stat. (Count Six - Delaware) 15

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 16 of 75

51. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Delaware is entitled to relief on

2 behalf of itself and its class of state agencies and political subdivisions, who were indirect 3 purchasers of DRAM or DRAM-containing products under the Cartwright Act, California

4 Business & Professions Code sections 16720 et seq. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (Count Seven - Florida) 52. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Florida on behalf of itself, its state agencies, its natural persons, and its political subdivisions, is entitled to relief under §§ 548.18 and 542.22, Florida Statutes, the Florida Antitrust Act, and §§ 501.201 and 501.207, Florida Statutes, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act. 53. The Court shall impose against the Defendant a civil penalty in the maximum amount permitted by § 541.21, Florida Statutes, for each violation of § 542.18 found in this case. 54. The Court shall order the Defendant to pay the State of Florida's costs and attorney's fees pursuant to §§ 542.22 and 542.23, Florida Statutes. 55. The Court shall impose against the Defendant a civil penalty in the maximum amount permitted by §§ 501.2075 or 501.2077, Florida Statutes, as appropriate, for each

16 violation of § 501.204, Florida Statutes, found in this case. 17 56. The Court shall order the Defendant to pay the State of Florida's costs and

18 attorney's fees pursuant to § 501.2105, Florida Statutes. 19 20 21 57. The Court shall order such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. (Count Eight - Hawaii) 58. Defendants' acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Hawaii is entitled to relief pursuant

22 to Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480 on behalf of its state agencies and certain political subdivisions. 23 24 25 26 27 (Count Nine - Idaho) 59. Defendant's acts violate, and the Plaintiff State of Idaho, on behalf of itself, its state agencies, its political subdivisions, and its persons (as defined by Idaho Code Section 48103(2)) is entitled to relief under the Idaho Competition Act, Idaho Code Sections 48-101 et seq. 60. Defendant's acts of conspiracy and unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce

28 had the purpose and effect of suppressing competition in the sale of DRAM or DRAMAntitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

16

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 17 of 75

containing products in the State of Idaho and elsewhere, and had a substantial and adverse impact

2 on prices for DRAM and DRAM-containing products in Idaho. Defendant's acts have caused 3 substantial injury and damage to the State of Idaho, its state agencies, its political subdivisions,

4 and its persons. For purposes of application of Idaho Code Section 48-108(2)(a) of the 5 6 7 8 9 Competition Act, Defendant's actions are per se violations of Idaho Code Section 48-104 of the Competition Act. (Count Ten - Illinois) 61. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Illinois, on behalf of itself, its state agencies and its political subdivisions who purchased DRAM or DRAM-containing products

1,0 directly or indirectly, and on behalf of its natural persons and its businesses who purchased 11 DRAM or DRAM-containing products indirectly, is entitled to relief under, the Illinois Antitrust

12 Act, 740 ILCS 10/1 et seq., including without limitation 740 ILCS 10/3(1) and (2). 13 14 (Count Eleven - Iowa) 62. Defendant's acts violate the Iowa Competition Act, Iowa Code sections 553 et

15 seq., the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, Iowa Code section 714.16, and Iowa common law, and 16 Plaintiff State of Iowa is entitled to all remedies available for such violations, including monetary 17 damages for injuries sustained by its state agencies. 18 19 (Count Twelve - Kentucky) 63. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff Commonwealth of Kentucky on behalf of

20 itself, its state agencies and political subdivisions who purchased DRAM and/or DRAM21 containing products, and as parens patriae for its natural persons who purchased DRAM-

22 containing products, is entitled to all relief provided under: (a) Kentucky Revised Statute 23 ("KRS") 367.175 (Kentucky's antitrust act); (b) the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS

24 367.170 et seq. (prohibiting unfair, false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices in trade or 25 commerce) which without limitation provides for damages; injunctive and other equitable relief

26 including but not limited to restitution; civil penalties, costs of investigation and attorneys' fees; 27 28 and (c) Kentucky common law against unjust enrichment, restraint of trade, and unfair competition.
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

17

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 18 of 75

64. In addition to any other relief provided by Kentucky law as cited above, Plaintiff

2 Commonwealth of Kentucky is entitled under KRS 367.990 to (a) civil penalties of $5,000 or 3 $200 per day for each and every violation of KRS 367.175; and (b) civil penalties of $2,000 for

4 each and every violation of KRS 367.170. 5 6 (Count Thirteen - Louisiana) 65. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Louisiana on behalf of itself, its

7 state agencies, its political subdivisions, and all citizens, whether natural or juridical, is entitled 8 to relief under the Louisiana Antitrust Act, La. R.S. 51: 121, et seq. and La. R.S. 51:1401, et seq. 9 10 11 (Count Fourteen - Maine) 66. Defendant's acts violate, and the State of Maine on behalf of itself, its state agencies and, as parens patriae, on behalf of persons who purchased DRAM or DRAM-

12 containing products indirectly, is entitled to relief under 10 M.R.S.A. § 1101, et seq. 13 14 (Count Fifteen - Maryland) 67. The aforementioned practices by Defendant were, and are in violation of the

15 Maryland Antitrust Act, Md. Corn. Law Code Ann. § 11-201 et seq. 16 68. Defendant's acts, as alleged above, have caused substantial injury and damage to

17 the State of Maryland, and state agencies, political subdivisions and persons in the State of 18 Maryland. 19 69. Plaintiff State of Maryland brings this action against Defendant pursuant to Md.

20 Corn. Law Code Ann. § 11-209, on behalf of the State, its state agencies, its political 21 subdivisions and, as parens patriae, on behalf of persons who purchased DRAM or

22 DRAM-containing products, for: (a) three times the amount of damages sustained by the State, 23 political subdivisions and persons who purchased DRAM or DRAM-containing products; (b) for 24 all available equitable relief, including injunctive relief and restitution for all persons residing in 25 the State; (c) for civil penalties; and (d) for reimbursement of reasonable attorneys fees, expert 26 fees and costs. 27 28 (Count Sixteen - Massachusetts) 70. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts on behalf
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded 18

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 19 of 75

of the Commonwealth, its state agencies and political subdivisions, and its natural persons and

2 businesses who purchased DRAM or DRAM-containing products, is entitled to relief under, the 3 4 5 6 Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L. c. 93A, sec. 2, et seq. (Count Seventeen - Michigan) 71. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Michigan on behalf of itself, its state agencies, and its natural persons who purchased DRAM or DRAM-containing products

7 indirectly, is entitled to relief under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 8 § 445.771 et seq., the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.901 et

9 seq., the common law of Michigan, and Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 14.28 and § 14.201. 10 11 12 13 (Count Eighteen - Minnesota) 72. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Minnesota on behalf of itself, its state agencies, and as parens patriae on behalf of its consumers, is entitled to relief under the Minnesota Antitrust Law of 1971, Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.49-.66, Minn. Stat. Ch. 8, and the

14 common law of Minnesota. 15 16 17 (Count Nineteen - Mississippi) 73. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Mississippi on behalf of itself, its state agencies, its political subdivisions, its businesses, and its natural persons, is entitled to relief

18 under its Consumer Protection Act found at Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-1, et seq. (1972, as 19 amended) and its Antitrust Act found at Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-1, et seq. (1972, as amended), 20 which respectively provide for damages, civil penalties and appropriate injunctive relief 21 22 23 (Count Twenty - Nebraska) 74. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Nebraska on behalf of itself, its state agencies, its political subdivisions, and as parens patriae on behalf of the citizens of

24 Nebraska, is entitled to relief under its Unlawful Restraint on Trade Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 5925 26 27 28 801 et seq. (Reissue 2004), its Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-101 et. seq. (Reissue 2004), and its Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Rev. Stat. § § 87-301 et seq. (Reissue 1999). (Count Twenty-One - Nevada)
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

19

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 20 of 75

75. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Nevada on behalf of itself, its state

2 agencies, its political subdivisions, and its natural persons, is entitled to relief under the Nevada 3 4 5 Unfair Trade Practice Act, NRS § 598A.010 et seq. (Count Twenty-Two - New Hampshire) 76. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of New Hampshire on behalf of itself,

6 its state agencies, and as parens patriae on behalf of its consumers, is entitled to relief under the 7 Combinations and Monopolies Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 356 (1999, as amended), and common 8 law. 9 10 11 12 (Count Twenty-Three - New Jersey) 77. Defendants' acts violate, and Plaintiff State of New Jersey is entitled to injunctive relief under, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15U.S.C. 1 78. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of New Jersey is entitled to relief

13 under, New Jersey Antitrust Act, Title 56, Ch. 9 N.J State. Ann. 56:9-1 et seq. 14 15 (Count Twenty-Four - New Mexico) 79. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of New Mexico on behalf of itself, its

16 state agencies and its natural persons and on behalf of the County of Sandoval, New Mexico, and 17 all other class of political subdivisions similarly situated as alleged above, is entitled to relief 18 under the New Mexico Antitrust Act, Section 57-1-1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1978 and New Mexico 19 Unfair Practices Act, Section 57-12-1 et seq., N.M.S.A. 1978. 20 21 80. The Attorney General represents the State of New Mexico, its state agencies and its natural persons as a part of her inherent authority vested in her by the Legislature of the State

22 of New Mexico. Further, she represents the County of Sandoval by agreement and under her 23 authority to initiate litigation when in her judgment the public interest of the State requires such

24 action. Section 8-5-2, N.M.S.A. 1978. 25 81. The State of New Mexico in its proprietary role, its political subdivisions and its

26 natural persons are entitled to treble damages for overcharges by, and unjust enrichment for, the 27 Defendants. 28 82. The State of New Mexico as sovereign is entitled to civil penalties.
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded 20

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 21 of 75

(Count Twenty-Five - North Carolina) 83. Defendant's acts as described above had the purpose and effect of suppressing competition in the sale of DRAM in the State of North Carolina and elsewhere, and had a

4 substantial adverse impact on prices for DRAM and DRAM-containing products in North 5 Carolina. These acts violate North Carolina's prohibitions on unreasonable restrains of trade in N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1 and 75-2, monopolization in N.C. Gen Stat. § 75-2.1, and unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in N. C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. 84. Defendant's acts have caused substantial damage and injury to the State of North Carolina, state agencies and political subdivisions in North Carolina, and persons doing business 10 or residing in the State of North Carolina. 11 85. Plaintiff State of North Carolina, for itself and as parens patriae on behalf of state

12 agencies and political subdivisions in North Carolina and person doing business or residing in 13 North Carolina, is entitled to monetary relief for injuries indirectly suffered by reason of the 14 violations alleged above. 15 86. Plaintiff State of North Carolina, for itself and on behalf of state agencies and

16 political subdivisions in North Carolina, is entitled to three times the total damage sustained as a 17 result of the conduct described above, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 18 87. Plaintiff State of North Carolina, on behalf of persons doing business or residing in

19 the State, is entitled to disgorgement of ill-gotten gains pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-14 and 20 restitution pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-15.1. 21 22 23 88. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 75-15.2, plaintiff State of North Carolina is entitled to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each knowing violation, and in the case of continuing violations is entitled to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each week that such violation

24 continued pursuant to N.C. Gen Stat. § 75-8. 25 26 (Count Twenty-Six - North Dakota) 89. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of North Dakota on behalf of itself, its

27 state agencies, and its natural persons, is entitled to relief under the North Dakota State Antitrust 28 Act, N.D.C.C. Sec. 51-08.1-01 et seq., North Dakota's Consumer Protection Act, N.D.C.C. Sec.
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

21

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 51-15-01.

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 22 of 75

(Count Twenty-Seven - Northern Mariana Islands) 90 The effect of Defendant's acts violated provisions of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' ("CNMI") Unfair Business Practices Act, 4 CMC § 5201 et seq. 5 These acts were also unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practice in the 6 conduct of Defendants' sale of DRAM or DRAM-containing products in the CNMI, in violation 7 of the CNMI's Consumer Protection Act, 4 CMC § 5101 et seq. 8 91. The CNMI, its political subdivisions and public agencies, have been injured in

9 their property by Defendant's actions, along with residents and businesses of the CNMI. 10
patriae

92. Plaintiff CNMI, for its political subdivisions and public agencies, and as parens on behalf of persons doing business or residing in the CNMI, is entitled to monetary

relief for injuries directly or indirectly suffered by the CNMI, its political subdivisions and public agencies, and indirectly suffered by said persons by reason of the violations alleged above. (Count Twenty-Eight - Ohio) 15 93. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Ohio on behalf of itself and a class .

16 of state agencies and political subdivisions is entitled to relief under, Ohio's Antitrust Law, Ohio 17 Revised Code, §§ 109.81 and 1331.01, et seq., and the common law of State of Ohio. 18 19 (Count Twenty-Nine - Oklahoma) 94. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Oklahoma on behalf of its natural

20 persons and state agencies is entitled to relief under the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. 21 22 23 § 201 et seq., and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. § 751, et seq.. (Count Thirty - Oregon) 95. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Oregon on behalf of itself, its state

24 agencies, its political subdivisions, and its natural persons is entitled to relief under the Oregon 25 Antitrust Act, ORS 646.705, et seq. 26 96. Defendant's acts of conspiracy and unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce

27 had the purpose and effect of suppressing competition in the sale of DRAM or DRAM28 containing products in the State of Oregon and elsewhere, and had a substantial and adverse
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

22

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3 4 5 6

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 23 of 75

impact on prices for DRAM or DRAM-containing products in Oregon. 97. Defendant's acts have caused substantial injury and damage to the State of Oregon, state agencies in the State, political subdivisions in the State, and natural persons in the State. 98. The activities of Defendant is a per se violation of Oregon's anti-trust law, ORS 646.725. Pursuant to ORS 646.775, the Attorney General possesses authority to seek equitable and monetary relief for injuries sustained by natural persons, state agencies, or political

7 subdivisions. 8 9 10 11 99. The Court shall award the State of Oregon three times the total damages sustained and its costs in the action, plus reasonable attorney fees. (Count Thirty-one - Pennsylvania) 100. Defendants' acts violate, and Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf

12 of itself and all political subdivisions and public agencies is entitled to relief under Pennsylvania 13 common law doctrines against monopolies, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment,

14 proceeding under 71 P.S. § 732-204(c) and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and 15. Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§201 et seq.. 16 17 18 (Count Thirty-Two - Rhode Island) 101. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Rhode Island on behalf of itself, its state agencies, political subdivisions and Rhode Island consumers, is entitled to relief pursuant to

19 R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1 et seq. and is also entitled to relief as parens patriae on behalf of its 20 natural persons under the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, R.I. Gen Laws § 6-36-1 et seq. 21 22 23 (Count Thirty-Three - South Carolina) 102. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of South Carolina on behalf of itself', its state agencies and natural persons who purchased DRAM or DRAM-containing products

24 indirectly, is entitled to relief under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, Sections 3925 26 27 28 5-10 et seq., and the common law of the state of South Carolina. (Count Thirty-Four - Tennessee) 103. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Tennessee on behalf of itself and on behalf of consumers is entitled to relief under, Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-6-109, Tenn. Code Ann.
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

23

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 24 of 75

§ 47-18-101 et seq. (The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977), and under Tenn. Code

2 Ann. § 47-25-101, et seq. (The Tennessee Unfair Trade Practices Act). 3 4 (Count Thirty-Five - Texas) 104. Defendant's acts violate Texas Business and Commerce Code § 15.05(a).

5 Plaintiff State of Texas on behalf of itself and its state agencies is entitled to relief under sections 6 15.20(a) and 15.21(b), which respectively provide for civil penalties and appropriate injunctive

7 and other equitable relief, such as disgorgement or restitution. 8 9 (Count Thirty-Six - Utah) 105. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Utah on behalf of itself, its state

10 agencies and political subdivisions, and as parens patriae for its natural persons, who purchased 11 DRAM and/or DRAM-containing products, is entitled to all relief provided under: (a) the Utah

12 Antitrust Act, Utah Code Ann. § § 76-10-911 et seq., including, without limitation, damages, 13 injunctive and other equitable relief, civil penalties, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as

14 provided in §§ 76-10-918 and 76-10-919; and (b) the common law of Utah, including, without 15 limitation, the common law against restraints of trade, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. 16 17 (Count Thirty-Seven - Vermont) 106. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Vermont on its own behalf and its

18 state agencies, and on behalf of all Vermont consumers, whether or not natural persons, is 19 entitled to relief under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, title 9 Vermont Statutes Annotated, 20 Chapter 63, 9 V.S.A. and the common law of Vermont. 21 22 23 (Count Thirty-Eight - Virginia) 107. Defendant's acts violate, and Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia on behalf of itself; its state agencies, and its political subdivisions who purchased DRAM or DRAM-

24 containing products is entitled to relief pursuant to the Virginia Antitrust Act, Va. Code Ann. § 25 26 27 59.1-9.15(a), (b) and (c) (2001). (Count Thirty-Nine - Washington) 108. Defendant's acts violate Wash. Rev. Code 19.86, and Plaintiff State of

28 Washington on behalf of itself; its state agencies and all persons who purchased DRAM and/or
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

24

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 25 of 75

DRAM-containing products is entitled to relief thereunder. (Count Forty - West Virginia) 109. The aforementioned practices by Defendant were in violation of the West

4 Virginia Antitrust Act, W.Va. Code § 47-18-1 et seq., and the West Virginia Consumer Credit 5 and Protection Act, W.Va. Code § 46A-1-101 et seq., and the State of West Virginia, its state 6 agencies, and political subdivisions, and the natural persons it represents are entitled to relief 7 there under. 8 9 10 11 (Count Forty-One - Wisconsin) 110. Defendant's acts were violations of the Wisconsin antitrust statute, Wis. Stat. § 133.03. These violations substantially affected the people of Wisconsin and had impacts within the State of Wisconsin. Plaintiff State of Wisconsin, on behalf of its natural persons, itself, its

12 state agencies, and its political subdivisions, all of whom were indirect purchasers of DRAM or 13 DRAM-containing products, is entitled to relief for these violations under Wis. Stat. §§ 133.14, 14 133.16, 133.17, and 133.18. 15 16 111. (Count Forty-Two - South Dakota) Defendants' acts violate, and Plaintiff State of South Dakota on behalf of itself,

17 its state agencies, political subdivisions and as parens patriae on behalf of its natural persons all 18 who were direct or indirect purchasers of DRAM or DRAM-contained products is entitled to 19 relief under the South Dakota antitrust laws SDCL chapter 37-1. 20 21 (Count Forty-Three - District of Columbia) 112. Defendants' acts violated provisions of the District of Columbia Antitrust Act,

22 D.C. Code § 28-4502 (2001). These acts restrained competition in Defendants' sale of DRAM or 23 DRAM-containing products in the District. 24 113. The District of Columbia (District), its political subdivisions and public agencies,

25 along with residents of the District, have been injured by Defendants' actions, by reason of 26 paying artificially inflated prices as direct or indirect purchasers of DRAM or DRAM-containing 27 products. 28 114. Plaintiff, the District, for its political subdivisions and public agencies, and as
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

25

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH
parens patriae

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 26 of 75

on behalf of persons residing in the District, is entitled to monetary relief for

2 injuries directly or indirectly suffered by the District, its political subdivisions and public 3 4 5 agencies, and said persons, by reasons of the violations alleged above. (Count Forty-Four - Missouri) 115. Defendants' acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Missouri on behalf of itself, State

6 Agencies, and on behalf of consumers is entitled to relief under, Missouri Revised Statutes § 7 407.010 et seq. (The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act), and § 416.030 et seq., (The 8 Missouri Antitrust Act), which provisions provide for the imposition of civil penalties and the 9 awarding of appropriate injunctive and other equitable relief, such as disgorgement or restitution, 10 and recovery of investigative and litigation costs. 11 12 13 116. (Count Forty-Five - Montana) Defendants' acts violate, and Plaintiff State of Montana on behalf of itself, its

state agencies and natural persons who purchased DRAM or DRAM-containing products

14 indirectly, is entitled to relief under the Montana Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act 15 (MCA §§ 30-14-101 et. al. and specifically MCA § 30-14-205), and the common law of the state 16 of Montana. 17 18 117. (Count Forty-Six - Connecticut) Defendant's actions as described herein had the purpose and effect of

19 unreasonably restraining trade and commerce by suppressing competition in the sale of DRAM in 20 the State of Connecticut and elsewhere, and had a substantial and adverse impact on prices for 21 DRAM and DRAM-containing products in Connecticut. These actions violate the Connecticut

22 Antitrust Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-24 et seq. In addition, these actions violate the 23 24 25 26 Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq. 118. Defendant's actions have caused substantial injury and damage to the State of

Connecticut, state agencies, and persons in the State of Connecticut. 119. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, seeks recovery

27 of such damages on behalf of the State of Connecticut, its state agencies, political subdivisions, 28 and the People of the State of Connecticut as parens patriae pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

26

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3 32(c)(1). 120.

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 27 of 75

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-28, plaintiff State of Connecticut, for itself and

as parens patriae on behalf of state agencies and political subdivisions in Connecticut or persons

4 residing in Connecticut, is entitled to a civil penalty of up to $250,000 from each individual who 5 has violated the Connecticut Antitrust Act. 6 121. Plaintiff State of Connecticut, for itself and as parens patriae on behalf of state

7 agencies and political subdivisions in Connecticut or persons residing in Connecticut, is entitled 8 to three times the total damages sustained as a result of the conduct described above, plus 9 reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-35. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

27

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 2 3

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Page 28 of 75

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States pray: A. Certain state antitrust law claims alleged in the Second Claim for Relief brought as

4 a part of a class action as asserted in Paragraphs 32 and 33 of this Complaint maybe maintained 5 6 7 8 9 10 '11 12 13 as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; B. On their First and Second Claims for Relief, for a Judgment: That the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to be: 1. A restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as alleged in the First Claim for Relief; and 2. An unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding, and/or concert of action in violation of state antitrust laws in the Second Claim for Relief herein; C. That Plaintiff States recover damages, as provided by federal and state antitrust laws under the First and Second Claims for Relief for conduct occurring during the time period

14 of approximately March 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002, and that a joint and several judgment in favor 15 16 17 18 of Plaintiff States be entered against the Defendant in an amount to be trebled in accordance with such laws where applicable; D. That Defendant, its affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act

19 on its behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner: (1) continuing, 20 maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein, or 21 from entering into any other conspiracy alleged herein, or from entering into any other contract,

22 conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following 23 any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or effect; (2) communication or

24 causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the sale of DRAM, information 25 concerning bids of competitors; (3) entering into agreements for the sale, transfer, assignment or

26 lease, of DRAM producing assets directly, through joint ventures or otherwise without first 27 providing Plaintiff States appropriate notice and disclosures; and (4) conducting further sales in 28 the U.S. without instituting compliance programs;
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

28

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 29 of 75

E. That the Plaintiff States be awarded restitution, including disgorgement of profits

2 obtained by Defendant as a result of its acts of unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment 3 and/or any acts in violation of state antitrust, consumer protection, or other statutes and laws, and

4 the maximum civil penalties allowed by the laws of their respective States; 5 F. That the Plaintiff States be awarded pre- and post judgment interest, and that the

6 interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial 7 complaint in this action; 8 9 10 11 12 13 G. That the Plaintiff States recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and H. That the Plaintiff States have such other, further, and different relief as the case may require and the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff States demand

14 a trial by jury for all issues so triable. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

29

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH 1 Date: 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

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 30 of 75

5`7ww 07EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California

By: i ey eneral tt Erney General of California 55 Golde Ga Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3664 Telephone: (415) 703-5908 Liaison and Co-Lead Counsel and Attorneys for the State of California

Antitrust Complaint: Jury Trial Demanded

30

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH ,2-0 0

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 31 of 75

1 Date: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 1819 20 2'1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28.

TALIS J. COLBERG Attorney General of Alaska

By: Clyda'E. Sniffers, Jr. AK Bar # 8906036 Senior Assistant Attorney General Alaska Department of Law 1031 W. 4th Avenue #200 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-5200

Antitrust Complaint;

Jury Trial Demanded

. 31

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 32 of 75

Date:

4(27 !r'l TERRY GODDARD, Attorney General of the State of Arizona

By: NNELL, AZ Bar #016382 Antitrust Unit Chief Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Tel. (602) 542-7728

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Antitrust Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded

32

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 33 of 75

Date: 4/19/07

DUSTIN MCDANIEL, Attorney General of Arkansas

By: Bradford r f elps Senior Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Bar No. 2001245 Office of the Attorney General 323 Center St, Little Rock, AR 72201 501/682-3625 (Phone) 501/682-8118 (Facsimile) [email protected]

33

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 34 of 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12

Date: May 14, 2007 JOHN W. SUTHERS Attorney General of the State of Colorado

Devin M. Laiho Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Section Colorado Department of Law 1525 Sherman Street - 7th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-5079 Email: [email protected]

13
14

15
16 17

18 19 20
21

22 23
24

25 26 27 28

Antitrust Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded

34

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH GENERAL Document860 808 . 5040 6 Filed 05/22/2007 ATTORNEY Apr-27 . 2007 04:57 PM

Page 35 of 75

2/2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Date:

April 27, 2007 RICHARD BLUM1 NTIIAL Attorney General of Connecticut

/ _ frt4 ` By: MICI '^ . COLE Chief, Antitrust Department Connecticut Attorney General's Office 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel, (860) 808-5040 Fax. (860) 8085033 Michael,[email protected]
4

23

Antitrust Complaint; jury Trial Demanded

35

O4f

,ff2LO f

j 1.1L Off n47 II1 : ^ I r K Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH

Document 6

I^Uf1 Urn

CIS

rISU

Filed 05/22/2007

I G., 1UII

Val V V L/ V V L

Page 36 of 75

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

Date:

, ' 4"/ JOSEPH R. B)DEN III, Attorney General Of the State of Delaware

By: MI ET. A. UNDO &ar # 3 874 Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice
820 N. French Street, 5th Floor Wilmington, D E 19801 Tel. (302) 577-8924

Antitrust Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded

36

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 37 of 75

1 Date: . 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

4/207
LINDA SINGER Acting Attorney General BENNETT RUSHKOFF Acting Deputy Attorney General Public Advocacy Division DON RESNIKOFF Senior Assistant Attorney General

--By^^ SUSAN PHAN Assistant Attorney General DC Bar #500479 Suite 450N 4414th St., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-3225 (phone) (202) 727-6546 (fax) [email protected]

.Antitrust Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded

37

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH

Document 6

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 38 of 75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12

BILL McCOLLUM, Attorney General of the State of Florida

Bv.

RICIA A."CONNERS Associate Deputy Attorney General FL Bar # 0361275 LIZABETH A. LEEDS Acting Division Director FL Bar # 0457991 EMILIAN BUCATARU Assistant Attorney General FL Bar #0733261 Office of the Attorney General Antitrust Division PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Telephone: (850) 414-3300

Antitrust Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded

38

O4/Y6/07 THU 15:55 t'AL SOS 556 1ZU5

Case 3:07-cv-02589-PJH
Date: /de'-.%'2

DocumentA'1TU11NI Y G1;Nb1iAL CEP 6 Filed 05/22/2007

Page 39 of 75

uu4

,

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

Z007

MARK J. BENNETT Attorney General of the State of Hawaii

By:

tG^
DEBORAH DAY EMERSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General RODNEY I. KIMURA C. BRYAN FITZGERALD D