All American semiconductor - SEMIQ

All American Semiconductor Inc. was a Miami-based electronic component distributor that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2007.

After liquidating all its assets, without paying creditors in full, SEMIQ's remaining value were several lawsuits against different suppliers for price fixing. It took a few years before these lawsuits lead to court wins/settlements, that allowed shareholders to receive their first liquidation.

"The strategy has helped Welt [SEMIQ's liquidating trustee] recover more than $100 million in antitrust suits for American Semiconductor's liquidating trust, fully repay principal and interest owed to creditors, and distribute about $25 million to shareholders".

There are roughly 4 million shares outstanding.

After repaying all creditors in March 2016 (On March 29, 2016, we received a final distribution of US$112 thousand), a few months later $5.68 per share were distributed to shareholders. Additional liquidations may derive from anything that could be awarded by the court (or by way of out-of-court settlements) as a result of SEMIQ's latest lawsuit, against their former capacitors suppliers.

Shares were cancelled after the ch 11 was closed.

A second liquidation of $0,56 was made in December 2017 / January 2018.

In 2009, Alex Shaw, a friend and a great investor, went to the Miami court to defend shareholders rights and put equity back at the end of the line. Thanks to his action, shareholders saw an unexpected recovery 7 year later. Unfortunately, Alex died a few months before the trust started its first pay out to shareholders. R.I.P., Alex.


2012 - All American Semiconductor Inc. wrapped up its suit alleging price manipulation in the dynamic random access memory market, reaching a dismissal agreement with the last remaining defendant in the suit and ending the bankrupt company's antitrust suit.

If approved, a stipulation for dismissal filed by All American and defendant Nanya Technology Corp. in California federal court will end the electronic component maker's five-year-long suit accusing Nanya and other DRAM suppliers of working together to corner the memory chip market.

2015: (link, in Korean language) LG Display 10Q: In 2011, AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust of All American Semiconductor Inc. .... filed individual lawsuits against us and other LCD panel companies, and the above individual lawsuits were also transferred to the Northern District Court of California. As of April 29, 2016, we reached an agreement with all plaintiffs except for Motorola and iiyama (UK) Limited.

August 2016 - Three Companies Agree to Plead Guilty for Fixing Prices of Electrolytic Capacitors

Rubycon, Elna and Holy Stone Are Latest Companies to Plead Guilty in Ongoing Investigation

Previously, NEC TOKIN Corp. and Hitachi Chemical Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty to participating in the same worldwide conspiracy. NEC TOKIN was sentenced to pay a fine of $13.8 million in January 2016, and Hitachi Chemical was sentenced to pay a fine of $3.8 million in June 2016.

September 2016 - Its claims could reach up to $60 million, including treble damages under federal antitrust laws.

Panasonic Corp. and its Sanyo subsidiaries are among 48 defendants named in an antitrust complaint filed in Miami-Dade County.

The companies are accused of conspiring to form an international cartel to orchestrate a long-running scam to rig prices of aluminum, tantalum and film capacitors used in electric devices.

The suit comes from The AASI Beneficiaries' Trust through its liquidating trustee, Kenneth Welt, on behalf of stakeholders of defunct All American Semiconductor Inc.

Capacitors Lawsuit - the lawsuit seems pretty solid:

>Conspirators exchanged information regarding fixed and variable input costs that impacted their product pricing (e.g., raw materials costs, labor costs), sales volumes, profitability, current prices, intended future prices, production capacity, market forecasts, customer, product and industry-specific pricing demands, and proposed responses thereto. Conspirators provided one another with this secret business intelligence during formal cartel meetings, ad hoc meetings between subsets of Conspirators, and through miscellaneous written and oral communications. For example, a January 16, 2011 email from Shinji Takagaki to fellow SANYO employees states, “N Company has called me today, saying that they will raise the price by 30% to its major client.”

>For example, in an April 2009 email chain with fellow SANYO employees, Tadashi Yoshida recounts his conversations with “Company N” (NEC TOKIN) with respect to a particular Affected Capacitors deal with “HW”:

“Yesterday, I have offered the prices below to Date-san of Company N. . . . I said let’s share by two companies. From HW to Company N, there is a demand for 10M/15 M and a request for TGT $0.11. I mentioned it is not necessary to go that low. Period.”

>An email from SANYO’s Akio Nakagawa, dated August 25, 2009, contained reports on AVX and KEMET’s non-public and confidential Capacitors business activities in a discussion sensitive enough for him to advise recipients, “Please be sure that you are prohibited from printing this email!!”


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

March 3rd, 2017 - see attached document (AASI Schedule capacitors):

In the event that this case proceeds before this Court following resolution Defendants’ Transfer Motion, the parties agree that with the exception of discovery-related disputes, this case is not suitable for reference to a United States Magistrate Judge.

AASI proposes the parties file initial disclosures on or before June 1, 2017.

Class action certification expert discovery begins on February 24, 2017; expert opposition reports are due on March 24, 2017; and expert rebuttal reports are due on April 21, 2017. Plaintiffs’ opening class certification motions and briefs are due on June 15, 2017; opposition briefs are due on July 13, 2017; and reply briefs are due on August 3, 2017.

Fact discovery is currently scheduled to be completed by November 6, 2017. The parties to the California Actions have also agreed to a summary judgment schedule: motions are due on March 15, 2018; oppositions are due on April 12, 2018; and replies are due on May 3, 2018.

Trial for the California Actions is currently scheduled for August 6, 2018.

Plaintiff proposes the following: a Status Conference on July 25, 2018, a Final Status Conference in February 2019 or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may allow, with trial to commence on March 11, 2019 or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may allow.

Various dates: partial settlements for capacitors lawsuits (AASI not party in these settlements).

Update from Florida case: (I, II)

1. On August 29, 2016, AASI filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. (ECF No. 1.)

2. On December 29, 2016, the Court in the Southern District of Florida ordered that Defendants respond to the Complaint within 45 days of the Court's order on Defendant's motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. (ECF No. 55.)

3. On June 14, 2017, the Court in the Southern District of Florida ordered that this action be transferred to the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 105.)

4. On July 14, 2017, this action was reassigned to this Court from Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. (ECF No. 137.)

5. On July 20, 2017, an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related ("Administrative Motion") was filed in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, requesting that this action be related to In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation and assigned to District Judge James Donato. (Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, ECF No. 1757.) Other related cases have previously been transferred to Judge Donato.

6. The Stipulating Defendants' current deadline to respond to the Complaint is July 31, 2017.

7. Counsel for the Stipulating Defendants have informed counsel for AASI that the Stipulating Defendants will each file an answer to the Complaint. AASI has therefore agreed to extend the time for each of the Stipulating Defendants to file an answer to September 29, 2017.

8. The parties believe that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency will be well served by extending the time for each of the Stipulating Defendants to file an answer to the Complaint.


In light of these facts, the undersigned parties jointly request that the Court enter the following stipulation as an Order of the Court: The deadline for each of the Stipulating Defendants to file an answer to the Complaint is extended to September 29, 2017.