Man in violation of privacy law

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Antitrust Law Daily, March 9, 2017

Jurisdiction challenge rejected in capacitor price fixing case

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Japanese capacitor manufacturer Nissei Electric Co., Ltd. was not entitled to dismissal of a price fixing action on jurisdictional grounds. For purposes of its motion to dismiss, the company unsuccessfully contended that the complaining capacitor purchasers based their claims on the activities of "Dissolved Nissei"—an entity that the defendant had acquired—and could not impose successor liability on defendant Nissei for "Dissolved Nissei" such that the court could exercise specific jurisdiction over Nissei. The plaintiffs adequately alleged that successor liability existed under the "mere continuation" exception to the general rule of California law that a purchasing corporation does not assume the debts and liabilities of the selling corporation (In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, March 7, 2017, Donato, J.).

The federal district court in San Francisco denied Nissei’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal at a later time if warranted by the facts and the law. Ultimately, the complaining purchasers would still be required to prove the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence.

"Mere continuation" exception. The plaintiffs only needed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts in order to avoid the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court explained. The plaintiffs alleged that the "mere continuation" exception applied because: "(1) no adequate consideration was given for the predecessor corporation’s assets and made available for meeting the claims of its unsecured creditors; [and] (2) one or more persons were officers, directors, or stockholder of both corporations." According to the court, the plaintiffs made an adequate prima facie showing on the first prong. The dispute between the parties over the value of consideration paid by Nissei for "Dissolved Nissei" warranted denial of the motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD.

Attorneys: C. Andrew Dirksen (Cera LLP) for Chip-Tech, Ltd. and Dependable Component Supply Corp. Adam R. Fox (Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP) for Nissei Electronic Co Ltd.

Companies: Nissei Electric Co. Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust ArizonaNews

Back to Top

Antitrust Law Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.


A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.