Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Solyndra vs Suntech-complaint

Solyndra vs Suntech-complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 766|Likes:
Published by forbesadmin

More info:

Published by: forbesadmin on Oct 15, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

10/15/2012

pdf

text

original

 
«/
1
2
3
46
7
a.
c
£u11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23242526
27
28
^g
_ca«
"2
/
0
WINSTON
&
STRAWN
LLP
W.GordonDobie(movingforadmission
prohac
vice)
wdobie@winston.com
WilliamC.O'Neil(movingforadmission
prohac
vice)
woneiI@winston.com
Kathryn
A.
Wendel
(moving
for
admission
pro
hac
vice)
kwendel@winston.com
35
WestWackerDrive
Chicago,IL60601
Telephone:312-558-5600
Facsimile:312-558-5700WINSTON
&
STRAWN
LLP
Robert
B.PringlefSBN:
51365)
rpringle@winston.com
EricE.
Sagerman(SBN:155496)
esagerman@winston.com
101
CaliforniaStreet
San
Francisco,
CA
94111-5802
Telephone:415-591-1000
Facsimile:415-591-1400
AttorneysforPlaintiff
SOLYNDRA
LLC
SOLYNDRA
LLC,
Plaintiff,
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICTCOURT
NORTHERN
DISTRICT
OF
CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND
DIVISION
c
rr
Case
No.
'/
vs.
SUNTECHPOWERHOLDINGS
CO.,LTD.,
SUNTECHAMERICA,INC.,TRINASOLARLIMITED,TRINASOLAR(U.S.),INC.,
YTNGLI
GREENENERGYHOLDING
COMPANY
LIMITED,YTNGLI
GREENENERGY
AMERICAS,
INC.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINTFORVIOLATIONS
OF
§§1
&2
OF
THESHERMAN
ANTITRUST
ACT,THECALIFORNIAUNFAIRPRACTICES
ACT,
THE
CARTWRIGHT
ACT,
AND
FORTORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE
JURY
TRIAL
DEMANDED
1
COMPLAINT
 
_H*£
gu-g
1
23
4567
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2728
Plaintiff
Solyndra
LLC
("Solyndra")
for
its
complaintagainstDefendantsSuntechPower
Holdings
Co.,Ltd.,
Suntech
America,Inc.
(collectively,
"Suntech"),
Trina
SolarLimited,Trina
Solar
(U.S.),
Inc.,
(collectively,"Trina"),Yingli
Green
Energy
Holding
CompanyLimited,
and
Yingli
GreenEnergyAmericas
Inc.
(collectively,"Yingli").
Suntech,
Trina,
andYinglishall
hereinaftercollectively
bereferred
to
at
times
as
"Defendants,"
and
Solyndra
alleges
as
follows:
SUMMARY
OFTHE
ACTION
1.
This
is
an
action
for
attemptedmonopolization,conspiracy,
predatory
pricing,
tortious
interference,
and
price
fixing
that
seeksredress
for
the
anticompetitiveacts
of
an
illegal
cartel
of
Chinesesolar
panelmanufacturers
who
conspired
to,
andsucceeded
in,
destroying
Solyndra,
a
company
that
was
once
named
one
of
the
"50Most
InnovativeCompanies
inthe
World"
by
the
MassachusettsInstitute
of
Technology.
2.
Defendantsinitially
cametotheUnitedStates
to
raise
moneyfrom
American
investors
by
selling
American
Depositary
Shares
("ADS")
on
theNew
York
Stock
Exchange.
Incredibly,
Defendants
elected
to
deploy
the
capital
they
raised
from
Americans
to
destroy
American
solarmanufacturers,
like
Solyndra.
To
achieve
this
goal,
Defendantsemployed
a
complex
scheme,
in
collaboration
witheach
other
and
raw
material
suppliers
and
certain
lenders,
to
flood
the
United
Statessolar
market
withsolarpanelsatbelow-costprices.
3.
What
is
more,
Defendants'
plan
to
dominate
the
United
States
solar
market
was
coordinated
by
Defendants,
trade
associations,certain
government-related
commercial
entities,
suchthat
Defendantsconspired
to
export
more
than
95%
of
their
production
anddumptheir
products
in
the
United
Statesand
achieve
marketdomination.
In
fact,
Suntech's
then-CEO
even
admitted
to
the
illegal
conduct
atissue,
noting,"Suntech,
to
build
market
share,
is
sellingsolar
panels
on
the
Americanmarket
for
lessthan
thecost
of
materials,
assembly,and
shipping."
4.
Further
to
their
dumping
conspiracy,
thethree
Defendants'
pricesmoved
intandem-
falling
75%
in
four
yearsas
their
massive
imports
hit
theUnited
States
market.
Consistent
withtheir
conspiracy,
two
Defendants
share
an
address
(Yingliand
Trina),
and
the
two
senior-mostexecutives
of
Trina
and
Suntechwork
together
on
the
board
of
a
Chinesetradeassociationwiththe
stated
purpose
of"collaboration."
COMPLAINT
 
j
as
.2-.
«8SS
14
*s
»
16
1718
1920
21
22
23
24
25
262728
12345
6
7
89
10
CO
1213
5.
Unfortunately
for
Solyndra
and
Americanconsumers,
Defendants'
plan
worked—
Defendants'
actions
destroyednot
only
Solyndra,butnearly
a
dozen
otherUnited
States
solar
manufacturers,whohaveallsoughtbankruptcyprotection.6.Defendants'actions,however,havenotgoneunnoticedbythe
United
States
Government.
The
Department
of
Commerce("Commerce")
has
already
determined
thatDefendants
"dumped"
solarpanels
in
the
UnitedStatesmarket
at
"less
than
fair
value"
suchthat
it
was
necessary
toissue
massive
duties
ofas
much
as
31.73%
inan
attempt
to
even
the
playing
field
forthefew
remaining
American
solarmanufacturers
that
have
notalready
been
drivenout
of
business.
Similarly,
the
InternationalTrade
Commission
("1TC")
determined
that
the
United
States
solar
panel
manufacturers'
financial
condition
"worsened
throughout
the
period
of
investigation
asthe
volume
andmarket
share
of
subject
importsgrew,
eventhoughtheindustrywasexperiencing
rapidly
increasingdemand."
7.Of
course,
the
UnitedStatesgovernmentaldeterminations
are
oflittle
comfort
to
Solyndra,
whoseonly
hope
of
redress
is
through
this
action.
Bythis
complaint,
Solyndra
seekscompensation
for
theloss
of
the$1.5
billion
value
of
its
business
and
more
which
Defendants
destroyed.
JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE
8.
ThisCourt
has
jurisdiction
over
this
action
under
15
U.S.C.
§
15
and
28
U.S.C.
§§
1331
and
1337.
This
Court
has
supplemental
jurisdiction
overthe
state
law
claimsasserted
herein
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
1367
because
those
claims
are
so
related
to
the
federalclaims
that
they
form
part
of
the
same
case
orcontroversy.
In
addition,this
Court
has
jurisdictionover
the
state
lawclaims
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
1332
because
the
amount
in
controversyexceeds
S75,000and
there
is
diversity
of
citizenship
among
the
parties.
9.
Venue
is
appropriate
in
this
District
under
15
U.S.C.
§§
15
and
22
and
28
U.S.C.
§
1391(b),
(c),and
(d)
because
Defendants
reside
or
transact
business
in
this
District,
andbecause
a
substantial
portion
of
theaffected
interstate
commercedescribed
herein
was
carried
out
in
this
District.
10.TheconductofDefendantsandtheirco-conspiratorsdescribedinthiscomplaintwas
3
COMPLAINT

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->