2(f) --Creates liability for the knowing recipient of a discriminatory price.
|
|
- Emma Brown
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT I. INTRODUCTION The Robinson-Patman Act was enacted in 1936 to solidify and enhance the Clayton Act's attack on discriminatory pricing. The Act was designed to address specific types of harmful pricing behavior, in particular the favoring of then newly developing chain stores over long established, independent, but smaller retailers. The Act itself has been criticized as being convoluted and unnecessarily complex, as well as out of step with the rest of the antitrust laws. Although cases under the Act are now infrequently brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, there has been a significant amount of private litigation in recent years. It has, however, become increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to win Robinson-Patman Act cases. This has been due primarily to the difficulties a plaintiff faces in proving antitrust injury. II. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT A. Codification The Robinson-Patman Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, and 21a (1997). An amendment was added in 1938 at 15 U.S.C. 13c (1997). The Act itself has three main sections, starting with section 2 (there is no section 1 of the Act). The Act is usually referred to according to its internal sections 2, 3 and 4, and not its United States Code sections. B. Section 2 2(a) --Prohibits price discrimination; sets forth the defenses of cost justification and changing conditions. 2(b) --Sets forth the third defense against price discrimination meeting competition. 2(c) --Outlaws both the payment and receipt of brokerage fees, except for services actually rendered. 2(d) --Prohibits discriminatory payments for services or facilities provided by the customer on behalf of the seller. 2(e) --Prohibits discriminatory provision of services or facilities by the seller to the customer. 2(f) --Creates liability for the knowing recipient of a discriminatory price. See 15 U.S.C. 13 (1997).
2 C. Section 3 Section 3 (15 U.S.C. 13a (1997)) creates criminal liability for three areas of discriminatory pricing covered generally by section 2. These areas are 1. Participating in a "sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity" while also providing the purchaser with a discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge not provided to the purchaser's competitors. 2. Charging different prices in different geographic areas in the United States, with "the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor," in the area where a lower price is charged. 3. Selling "goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor." Although this section is still part of the Act, it is hardly ever enforced. D. Exemptions Section 4 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 13b (1997)) and the 1938 amendment to the Act (15 U.S.C. 13c (1997)) create two exemptions from the preceding provisions of the Act. Under section 4, cooperative associations, and under section 13c, non-profit institutions, are exempt from the provisions of the Act. E. Enforcement Finally, another section of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 21a (1997), is an enforcement provision, assigning jurisdiction to enforce compliance under the Act generally to the Federal Trade Commission, unless involving common carriers, banks, air carriers, or common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication, in which case other agencies have jurisdiction. III. PRICE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT A. Introduction to the Prima Facie Case 1. Statutory language of Section 2(a) "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of
3 commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.... " 15 U.S.C. 13(a) (1997). 2. Summary of the elements of a Section 2(a) violation a. two completed sales to two different purchasers; b. reasonably contemporaneous with each other; c. by the same seller; d. engaged in commerce; e. of commodities; f. of like grade and quality; g. for use, consumption or resale within the United States or any territory thereof; h. at different/discriminatory prices; i. with injurious effect on competition or on a competitor of either the seller or the purchaser. B. Elements of a Section 2(a) Violation 1. Two completed sales to two different purchasers The Act does not cover non-sale transactions, such as leases of real estate, license agreements, consignment arrangements or government permits. See, e.g., Fiore v. Kelly Run Sanitation, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 909 (W.D. Pa. 1985) (court held that issuance of permit to operate a landfill is analogous to "licensing transactions which are not sales for the purposes of the act") (see infra Section III, B, 5, a). An actual sale must also be involved; offers and refusals to deal are not covered by the Act. Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1988) (refusal to deal not sufficient to establish a Robinson-Patman Act claim). Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Indus., Inc., 729 F.2d 676, (10th Cir.) (refusal to deal, in this case even having terminated sales to the purchaser, not a discriminatory sale under the Robinson-Patman Act), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 (1984) (see infra Sections III, B, 2 and III, B, 4). Foremost Pro Color v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 547 (9th Cir. 1983) ("mere 'offer' to sell to competing customers at
4 different prices does not satisfy this requirement of two actual, contemporaneous sales"), cert. denied, 465 U.S (1984). Fusco v. Xerox Corp., 676 F.2d 332, 337 (8th Cir. 1982) ("Mere offers to sell are not sufficient."). Moreover, even if the reason the plaintiff did not make the purchase was because of the higher price, the requirement of two sales is not met and the higher price is still only considered an offer. Maier-Schule GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 780 F. Supp. 984, (W.D.N.Y. 1991) (simply, this is not the sort of injury covered by the Robinson-Patman Act). However, at least one case has held that an agreement to purchase, on the one hand, and an actual sale, on the other, may be sufficient. En Vogue v. UK Optical Ltd., 843 F. Supp. 838 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (agreement to purchase sufficient where it contained terms requiring plaintiff to purchase a certain amount of defendant's goods in the coming year) (see infra Section IX). Also, the "purchasers" in the comparison must be actual purchasers, and not merely an intermediary or an agent for one of the parties to the sale. Metro Communications Co. v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 984 F.2d 739 (6th Cir. 1993) (where plaintiff is an intermediary, the transaction is not a sale) (see infra Section III, B, 5, b, (5)). Southern Business Communications Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 806 F. Supp. 950 (N.D. Ga. 1992) (no Robinson-Patman Act violation where the entity which allegedly received a more favorable price than the plaintiff (although otherwise in competition with the plaintiff) was not the actual purchaser, but merely its agent; the actual purchaser was not only not in competition with the plaintiff, it was using the product for itself and not for resale). Parent-subsidiary transfer. Several circuit court cases have held that in light, especially, of Copperweld Corp. v. Independent Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (under the Sherman Act, a parent and wholly owned subsidiary are considered a single economic unit), a transfer of commodities by a parent to its wholly owned subsidiary is not a "sale" for the purposes of the Robinson-Patman Act. Russ' Kwik Car Wash v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 772 F.2d 214 (6th Cir. 1985) (rejecting the "control test" -- whether the subsidiary operated sufficiently independently from the parent to be considered
5 a separate entity -- long used by the Sixth Circuit to evaluate transfers between parents and subsidiaries in favor of the Copperweld inspired per se rule). City of Mt. Pleasant v. Associated Elec. Co-op., 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1988) (followed the Sixth Circuit in adopting the Copperweld inspired rule). Cf. Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, 19 F.3d 745 (1st Cir. 1994) (acknowledging the application of the Copperweld doctrine by the Sixth and Eighth Circuits to transfers between a parent and its wholly-owned subsidiary, and, applying the doctrine, holding that a parent and its wholly-owned subsidiary are one seller for Robinson-Patman Act purposes) (see infra Sections III, B, 3; III, B, 8, d; and, IX) 2. Reasonably contemporaneous Black Gold, Ltd v. Rockwool Indus., Inc., 729 F.2d 676, 683 (10th Cir.) (for sales to be reasonably contemporaneous the sales must be entered into within a relatively short time of each other and the expected deliveries must be "reasonably simultaneous"), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 (1984) (see supra Section III, B, 1 and infra Section III, B, 4). A.A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., 881 F.2d 1396, 1407 (7th Cir. 1989) (Contracts signed six months apart not considered reasonably contemporaneous for Robinson-Patman Act purposes, even where the earlier contract lasted for a year. "No one supposes that a seller must charge the same price on contracts signed at different times, or on long-term contracts and spot sales."), cert. denied, 494 U.S (1990) (see supra Sections III, B, 6, c; III, B, 8, c; and, III, B, 9, e, (1)). Sylling v. Westinghouse Corp., 5 F.3d 540 (9th Cir. 1993) (Table, unpublished disposition, text in WESTLAW) ("the date of the contract setting the price is the controlling date for comparing sales" under the Robinson-Patman Act) (see infra Section IX). See also Capital Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 819 F. Supp. 1555, (N.D. Ga. 1992) (where the prices were determined at different times, not considered to be "reasonably contemporaneous," it is irrelevant that the delivery times for the purchases were "reasonably contemporaneous;" the proper reference is to the time the contract is made and the prices are set)
I. INTRODUCTION... 4 II. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT A. Codification... 4 B. Section C. Section D. Exemptions... 5 E. Enforcement...
I. INTRODUCTION... 4 II. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT... 4 A. Codification... 4 B. Section 2... 4 C. Section 3... 5 D. Exemptions... 5 E. Enforcement... 5 III. PRICE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT...
More informationTITLE 15 COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 1 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Picker, Antitrust, Winter, 2012 January 4, 2012 Page 1 TITLE 15 COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 1 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE 1. TRUSTS, ETC., IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE ILLEGAL; PENALTY Every
More informationAntitrust Injury in Robinson-Patman Cases: What s Left?
NOVEMBER 2008, RELEASE TWO Antitrust Injury in Robinson-Patman Cases: What s Left? Scott Martin Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Antitrust Injury in Robinson-Patman Cases: What s Left? Scott Martin* lthough
More informationCOMMENTS. 8 Ibid. Id., at Stat (1936), 15 U.S.C.A. 13 (1952).
COMMENTS COST JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT The recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Simplicity Patterns Co. v. FTC' represents a novel judicial approach
More informationHow Much Light has Sun Oil Shed on "Meeting Competition" Under the Robinson-Patman Act?
Boston College Law Review Volume 4 Issue 3 Article 15 4-1-1963 How Much Light has Sun Oil Shed on "Meeting Competition" Under the Robinson-Patman Act? Joseph H. Spain Follow this and additional works at:
More informationAntitrust Considerations for Participants in the Commodity Markets. Presented by: Michael H. Knight Stephen J. Obie
Antitrust Considerations for Participants in the Commodity Markets Presented by: Michael H. Knight Stephen J. Obie Administrative Items The webinar will be recorded and posted to the FIA website following
More informationNotre Dame Law Review
Notre Dame Law Review Volume 41 Issue 3 Article 5 2-1-1966 Note Martin F. Idzik Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin
More informationCOMMENT. ABUSE OF DISCRETION: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTISE vs. JUDICIAL SURVEILLANCE
[Vol.115 COMMENT ABUSE OF DISCRETION: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTISE vs. JUDICIAL SURVEILLANCE In 1958 the Supreme Court, in Moog Indus., Inc. v. FTC,' reversed a Seventh Circuit decision postponing an FTC cease
More informationCaveat Emptor: Liability of Buyers for Inducing Violations of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act
Boston College Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 5 1-1-1964 Caveat Emptor: Liability of Buyers for Inducing Violations of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act Jay H. McDowell Follow this
More informationFree Enterprise - Price Discrimination Under the Clayton Act
Louisiana Law Review Volume 21 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1959-1960 Term February 1961 Free Enterprise - Price Discrimination Under the Clayton Act Merwin M. Brandon Jr. Repository
More informationPrice Discrimination - Good Faith Meeting of Competition
Louisiana Law Review Volume 19 Number 1 Legislative Symposium: The 1958 Regular Session December 1958 Price Discrimination - Good Faith Meeting of Competition Philip E. Henderson Repository Citation Philip
More informationElectric Transportation Systems Global Business Signal.ing(GETS), and Jeffrey R Immelt, Chief Executive
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) MEDICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., ) ) PLllintiff, ) ) ~ ) > ) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et a1., ) ) Defendants. ) --------------.------------>
More informationCase 3:15-cv RS Document 127 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-rs Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No.0-md-0-RS Individual
More informationProper Scope of the Non-Profit Institutions Exemption: Abott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Association, The
SMU Law Review Volume 31 Issue 2 Article 8 1977 Proper Scope of the Non-Profit Institutions Exemption: Abott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Association, The Charles R. Gibbs Follow this and
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 62 Article 15 1
Article 15. Penalties and Actions. 62-310. Public utility violating any provision of Chapter, rules or orders; penalty; enforcement by injunction. (a) Any public utility which violates any of the provisions
More informationTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW sumption of coverage might have the salutary effect of causing insurance companies to clarify the provisions as to the effective date; i.e., the agent would be instructed
More informationEQUAL PRICE TREATMENT UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
EQUAL PRICE TREATMENT UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT By P. J. B. CROWLEY t When the Robinson-Patman Act became a law approximately ten years ago, 1 questions arose concerning both its constitutionality
More informationENTERPRISES., INC, ET AL * CASE NO.: 24-C * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
EASTSIDE VEND * DISTRIBUTORS, INC. IN THE * Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT * V. FOR * COCA-COLA, BALTIMORE CITY ENTERPRISES., INC, ET AL * CASE NO.: 24-C-04-003998 * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
St. John's Law Review Volume 36 Issue 1 Volume 36, December 1961, Number 1 Article 4 May 2013 Antitrust Law--Price Discrimination--Defense of "Meeting Competition" Under Robinson-Patman Act (Sun Oil Co.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC., Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-blf ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S PARTIAL
More informationCase 1:05-cv MRB Document 27 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00519-MRB Document 27 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Total Benefits Planning Agency Inc. et al., Plaintiffs v. Case No.
More informationNot All Price Discriminations are Unlawful Under the Robinson-Patman Act
Marquette Law Review Volume 42 Issue 2 Fall 1958 Article 3 Not All Price Discriminations are Unlawful Under the Robinson-Patman Act John F. Savage Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr
More informationYohan Choi v. ABF Freight System Inc
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-13-2016 Yohan Choi v. ABF Freight System Inc Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationAssembly Bill No. 518 Committee on Commerce and Labor
Assembly Bill No. 518 Committee on Commerce and Labor - CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to telecommunication service; revising provisions governing the regulation of certain incumbent local exchange carriers;
More informationPrivate Antitrust Suits: The In Pari Delicto Defense
Boston College Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Number 1 Article 10 10-1-1968 Private Antitrust Suits: The In Pari Delicto Defense Norman C. Sabbey Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 8003 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, v. Plaintiff Appellant, AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al., Defendants Appellees. Petition for Leave to Take an
More information3.2 Antitrust Sherman Act (Section 1, Per Se Violation) Tying Agreement Defense Of Justification
3.2 Antitrust Sherman Act (Section 1, Per Se Violation) Tying Agreement Defense Of Justification In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated Title 15, United States Code, Section 1, commonly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 1:04-cv-00121-BLW Document 78 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ROBERT AND RENAE BAFUS, ) et al., ) ) Case No. CV-04-121-S-BLW Plaintiffs, )
More information1 Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer 2 Distributor Distributor Distributor Distributor Distributor Distributor 3 Consumers
American Concrete Pipe Association Professional Product Proficiency A Technical and Sales/Marketing Training Program ACPA Sales and Marketing Series Module I: Sales Basics 1 Course 1: Antitrust Author:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15-3001 WOODMAN S FOOD MARKET, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CLOROX COMPANY AND CLOROX SALES COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from
More informationLoyola University Chicago Law Journal
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 1 Issue 1 Winter 1970 Article 10 1970 Antitrust - Tying Arrangements - Conditioning Grant of Credit upon Purchase of Seller's Product Held to Be Tying Arrangement
More informationPatent Portfolio Management and Technical Standard Setting: How to Avoid Loss of Patent Rights. Bruce D. Sunstein 1 Bromberg & Sunstein LLP
Patent Portfolio Management and Technical Standard Setting: How to Avoid Loss of Patent Rights I. The Antitrust Background by Bruce D. Sunstein 1 Bromberg & Sunstein LLP Standard setting can potentially
More informationThe Civil Practice & Procedure Committee s Young Lawyers Advisory Panel: Perspectives in Antitrust
The Civil Practice & Procedure Committee s Young Lawyers Advisory Panel: Perspectives in Antitrust NOVEMBER 2017 VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1 In This Issue: Sister Company Liability for Antitrust Conspiracies: Open
More informationThe Statute of Limitations in the Fair Housing Act: Trap for the Unwary
Florida State University Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 3 Winter 1977 The Statute of Limitations in the Fair Housing Act: Trap for the Unwary Edward Phillips Nickinson, III Follow this and additional
More informationThe Second Attack on Price Discrimination: The Robinson-Patman Act
Washington University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 2 January 1937 The Second Attack on Price Discrimination: The Robinson-Patman Act Milo Fowler Hamilton Lee Loevinger Follow this and additional works at:
More informationIntellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims
Intellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims News from the State Bar of California Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section From the January 2018 E-Brief David
More informationAnglo-American Law. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. V. Psks, Inc., Dba Kay s Kloset, Kay s Shoes. Aykut ÖZDEMİR* * Attorney at law.
Anglo-American Law Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. V. Psks, Inc., Dba Kay s Kloset, Kay s Shoes Aykut ÖZDEMİR* * Attorney at law. Introduction Mainly, agreements restricting competition are grouped
More informationTitle 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS
Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS Chapter 603-A: DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION Table of Contents Part 7. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS... Section 2981. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section 2982. APPLICABILITY; AUTHORITY... 3 Section
More informationResolving the Conflict Between the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act: United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
Resolving the Conflict Between the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act: United States v. United States Gypsum Co. Several lower federal court decisions have created a conflict between the Sherman Act'
More information12/6/ :35:59 AM
The Untwining of Patent Law and Antitrust: No Presumption of Market Power in Patent Tying Cases According to the Supreme Court in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink Sue Ann Mota 1 I. INTRODUCTION Congress
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No (Summary Calendar) WILLIAM S. HANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41441 (Summary Calendar) WILLIAM S. HANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HEMELGARN ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, doing business as Hemelgarn
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Regulation D Offerings and Private Placements
427 ALI-ABA Course of Study Regulation D Offerings and Private Placements Cosponsored by the Securities Law Committee of the Federal Bar Association March 12-14, 2009 Scottsdale, Arizona Private Placements:
More informationBuyer Liability Under Section 2(f ) of the Robinson-Patman Act
University of Richmond Law Review Volume 15 Issue 3 Article 4 1981 Buyer Liability Under Section 2(f ) of the Robinson-Patman Act Douglas E. Ray University of Richmond Follow this and additional works
More informationCASE NO. 1D J. Nixon Daniel, III and Jack W. Lurton, III of Beggs & Lane, RLLP, Pensacola, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARC BAKER, v. Appellant/Cross-Appellee, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
More informationThe Robinson-Patman Act and Treble Damage Suits
St. John's Law Review Volume 32 Issue 2 Volume 32, May 1958, Number 2 Article 13 May 2013 The Robinson-Patman Act and Treble Damage Suits St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview
More informationA Survey of the Antitrust Law of Exclusive Agreements
University of Richmond Law Review Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 8 1972 A Survey of the Antitrust Law of Exclusive Agreements John H. Shenefield Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview
More informationIntroduction into US business law VIII FS 2017
Introduction into US business law VIII FS 2017 Repetition last time: torts > Torts > Civil wrong > Relevance (incl. Excessive damages reforms?) > Intentional > Negligence > To proof: > Duty to care, breach
More informationAntitrust and Intellectual Property
and Intellectual Property July 22, 2016 Rob Kidwell, Member Antitrust Prohibitions vs IP Protections The Challenge Harmonizing U.S. antitrust laws that sanction the illegal use of monopoly/market power
More informationTying Arrangements: Requisite Economic Power, Promotional Ties and the Single Product Defense
Boston College Law Review Volume 11 Issue 2 Number 2 Article 10 2-1-1970 Tying Arrangements: Requisite Economic Power, Promotional Ties and the Single Product Defense Raymond J. Brassard Follow this and
More informationRICO's Rule in Securities Fraud Litigation: Should It Be Facilitated or Restricted;Legislative Reform
Journal of Legislation Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 13 5-1-1995 RICO's Rule in Securities Fraud Litigation: Should It Be Facilitated or Restricted;Legislative Reform Dana L. Wolff Follow this and additional
More informationOKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 WINTER 2004 NUMBER 4 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN OKLAHOMA ANTITRUST LAW
OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 WINTER 2004 NUMBER 4 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN OKLAHOMA ANTITRUST LAW D. KENT MEYERS * & JENNIFER A. DUTTON ** This Article covers six antitrust topics of interest addressed
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 06-480 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC., v. Petitioner, PSKS, INC., doing business as
More informationSyllabus -- Franchise and Distribution Law/Professor Devlin/Fall 2008
Preliminary (subject to change) Syllabus -- Franchise and Distribution Law/Professor Devlin/Fall 2008 Meets Tuesday and Thursday 10:30 Noon Room TBD Casebook Schneider and Ney - Business Franchise Law:
More informationAnti-Trust Law - Applicability of Section 7 of the Clayton Act to Bank Mergers - United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S.
DePaul Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1963 Article 12 Anti-Trust Law - Applicability of Section 7 of the Clayton Act to Bank Mergers - United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321
More informationCase tnw Doc 41 Filed 03/21/16 Entered 03/22/16 09:16:29 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8 JEREMEY C. ROY CASE NO
Document Page 1 of 8 IN RE: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION JEREMEY C. ROY CASE NO. 15-51217 DEBTOR HIJ INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as JOMCO, INC. PLAINTIFF
More information3 Antitrust Law Enforcement
3 Antitrust Law Enforcement 3.01 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF ENFORCEMENT When General Noriega was hauled out of Panama by U.S. forces, then brought to Miami to stand trial for drug trafficking there, many people
More informationANTITRUST COMPLIANCE GUIDE FOR THE MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION
ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE GUIDE FOR THE MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC., Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-blf ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF'S MOTION
More informationVIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHWESTERN COUNTY 1
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHWESTERN COUNTY 1 SMOOTH RIDE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1234-567 IRONMEN CORP. d/b/a TUFF STUFF, INC. and STEEL-ON-WHEELS, LTD., Defendants. PLAINTIFF SMOOTH
More information10 TH ANNUAL HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER S ROUNDTABLE VBA HEALTH LAW SECTION
10 TH ANNUAL HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER S ROUNDTABLE VBA HEALTH LAW SECTION ANTITRUST SCRUTINY OF HEALTH CARE TRANSACTIONS HEMAN A. MARSHALL, III Woods Rogers, PLC 540-983-7654 marshall@woodsrogers.com November
More informationA Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC
JULY 2008, RELEASE TWO A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC Layne Kruse and Amy Garzon Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. A Short Guide to the Prosecution
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 22, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1517 Lower Tribunal No. 16-31938 Asset Recovery
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ROXUL USA, INC. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1258 MEMORANDUM KEARNEY,J. February 9, 2018 Competing manufacturers
More informationTrade and Commerce Laws
CHAPTER 4 Trade and Commerce Laws IN GENERAL All aspects of our federal and state trade and commerce laws apply to any and all business and professions (including actuaries) except that such application
More informationPer Se Illegality and Concerted Refusals to Deal
Boston College Law Review Volume 13 Issue 3 Number 3 Article 3 2-1-1972 Per Se Illegality and Concerted Refusals to Deal Allen C. Horsley Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr
More informationPATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL RICO LITIGATION
FORM 9 PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL RICO LITIGATION INSTRUCTION 9.1 General Introductory Instruction for Actions Based on 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), (b), (c) and (d) As jurors, you have now heard all of
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Corporation and Enterprise Law Commons
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 46 Issue 2 Article 10 3-1-1989 IV. Franchise Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Corporation and Enterprise
More informationCase: 3:14-cv slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8
Case: 3:14-cv-00734-slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WOODMAN S FOOD MARKET, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE CLOROX COMPANY
More informationPCI SSC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines
Document Number: PCI-PROC-0036 Version: 1.2 Editor: Mauro Lance PCI-PROC-0036 PCI SSC ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES These guidelines are provided by the PCI Security Standards Council, LLC ( PCI SSC
More informationCRS Report for Congress
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22236 September 2, 2005 Price Increases in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Authority to Limit Price Gouging Summary Angie A. Welborn
More informationCase 1:05-cv JDT-TAB Document 30 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00618-JDT-TAB Document 30 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DANIEL WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION,
More informationPatents, Tying and Market Power: The Implications of ITW v. Independent Ink for Antitrust Claims Against IP Owners
Patents, Tying and Market Power: The Implications of ITW v. Independent Ink for Antitrust Claims Against IP Owners Andrew J. Pincus Christopher J. Kelly March 14, 2006 Summary of Seminar The case, the
More informationMEMORANDUM. Criminal Procedure and Remedies Issues Recommended for Commission Study
MEMORANDUM From: To: cc: Criminal Procedure and Remedies Working Group All Commissioners Andrew J. Heimert and Commission Staff Date: December 21, 2004 Re: Criminal Procedure and Remedies Issues Recommended
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
Moore v. University of Memphis et al Doc. 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION LARRY MOORE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS, ET AL., Defendants. / Case No.
More informationWHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION LAW
WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION LAW William Jay Hunter, Jr., Steven B. Loy, Amy Olive Wheeler, Brad S. Keeton, and Rebecca Ann Krefft I. WHAT IS ANTITRUST? A. Antitrust
More informationTermination and Non-Renewal of Franchises Under the Automobile Dealers Franchise Act
Indiana Law Journal Volume 37 Issue 4 Article 5 Summer 1962 Termination and Non-Renewal of Franchises Under the Automobile Dealers Franchise Act Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj
More informationA RE-EVALUATION OF THE "FILED RATE" DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF REVISED REGULATORY POLICY AND CARRIERS' PRACTICES: INF, LTD. V. SPECTRO ALLOYS CORP.
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE "FILED RATE" DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF REVISED REGULATORY POLICY AND CARRIERS' PRACTICES: INF, LTD. V. SPECTRO ALLOYS CORP. INTRODUCTION In 1887, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce
More informationCase 2:14-cv MWF-PLA Document 2 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:15
Case :-cv-000-mwf-pla Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: Case :-cv-000-mwf-pla Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 (a)(), for an order requiring Respondents Great Plains Lending, LLC, MobiLoans,
More informationCleveland State University. Matthew T. Polito
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Journal of Law and Health Law Journals 2002 Can Cleveland Clinic Health System Be Trusted: Whether a Proposed Merger or Acquisition by Cleveland Clinic
More informationINTERNATIONAL SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS: CURRENT TRENDS & ISSUES. By David B. Eberhardt and John E. McCann, Jr.
INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS: CURRENT TRENDS & ISSUES By David B. Eberhardt and John E. McCann, Jr. In today s global economy, and with the advent of purchasing via the Internet,
More informationA Missed Opportunity: Nonprofit Antitrust Liability in Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. Historic Green Springs, Inc.
Yale Law Journal Volume 113 Issue 2 Yale Law Journal Article 5 2003 A Missed Opportunity: Nonprofit Antitrust Liability in Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. Historic Green Springs, Inc. Olivia S. Choe Follow
More informationThe Price Discrimination Provisions of the Robinson-Patman Act: A Forthcoming Clarification of the Jurisdictional Requirements?
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 5 Issue 2 Summer 1974 Article 12 1974 The Price Discrimination Provisions of the Robinson-Patman Act: A Forthcoming Clarification of the Jurisdictional Requirements?
More informationCase 4:09-cv WRW Document 28 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 4:09-cv-00936-WRW Document 28 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LOUIS FROUD, et al. PLAINTIFF V. 4:09CV00936-WRW ANADARKO
More informationSATNAM DISTRIBUTORS LLC v. COMMONWEALTH-ALTADIS, INC. et al Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SATNAM DISTRIBUTORS LLC v. COMMONWEALTH-ALTADIS, INC. et al Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SA TNAM DISTRIBUTORS LLC CIVIL ACTION v. Plaintiff, COMMONWEALTH-ALTADIS,
More informationThe Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
More informationA ((800) (800) Supreme Court of the United States. No IN THE
No. 03-724 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC., ROCHE VITAMINS INC., BASF AG, BASF CORP., RHÔNE-POULENC ANIMAL NUTRITION INC., RHÔNE-POULENC INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 12a0167p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY WILLIAMS; BGR, INC.; MUNAFO, INC.; AIKIDO OF
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RS21723 Updated August 1, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Trinko: Telecommunications Consumers Cannot Use Antitrust Laws to Remedy Access
More informationThe Admissibility of Tape Recorded Evidence Produced by Private Individuals Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 45 Issue 1 Article 7 1-1-1988 The Admissibility of Tape Recorded Evidence Produced by Private Individuals Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 Follow
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION. REGENCY CONVERSIONS LLC et al. AMENDED ORDER 1
Crain CDJ LLC et al v. Regency Conversions LLC Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CRAIN CDJ LLC, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. 4:08CV03605-WRW REGENCY CONVERSIONS
More informationThe Rule of Reason After Leegin: Reconsidering the Use of Economic Analysis in the Antitrust Arena
The Rule of Reason After Leegin: Reconsidering the Use of Economic Analysis in the Antitrust Arena The rule of reason is designed and used to eliminate anti-competitive transactions from the market. This
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Case No. 02-1432 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DONALD H. BESKIND; KAREN BLUESTEIN; MICHAEL D. CASPER, SR.; MICHAEL Q. MURRAY; D. SCOTT TURNER; MICHAEL J. WENIG; MARY A. WENIG; and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number Honorable David M.
Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Parrish et al Doc. 159 GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case Number
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT O. STEIN,
No. 04-16201 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT O. STEIN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC., SBC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
More informationState Regulation of Resale Price Maintenance on the Internet: The Constitutional Problems with the 2009 Amendment to the Maryland Antitrust Act
State Regulation of Resale Price Maintenance on the Internet: The Constitutional Problems with the 2009 Amendment to the Maryland Antitrust Act Katherine M. Brockmeyer * Table of Contents I. Introduction...
More informationWikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS22700 Resale Price Maintenance No Longer a Per Se Antitrust Offense: Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc. Janice
More informationCase 2:17-cv GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-02582-GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL S. PENNACHIETTI, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-02582
More informationDisaggregation of Damages Requirement in Private Monopolization Actions
Notre Dame Law Review Volume 62 Issue 4 Article 5 1-1-1987 Disaggregation of Damages Requirement in Private Monopolization Actions James R. McCall Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr
More information3 Chief, Tax Division
EBRA W. YANG United States Attorney ANORA R. BROWN Chief, Tax Division DONNA FORD (California Bar No. 1) Room Federal Building 00 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 001 6 Telephone: (1) 8-8 Facsimile:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS
GERI SIANO CARRIUOLO, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-61429-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION
More information