Antitrust Law Blog : Antitrust Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Antitrust Law Blog

Despite the California Supreme Court's conclusion that gasoline purchasers failed even to imply a price-fixing conspiracy among major oil companies, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has allowed wholesale gasoline purchasers to proceed with similar claims against the same defendants, repackaged under the rule of reason. William O. Gilley Enters., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7161 (9th Cir. April 3, 2009).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two years ago, PSKS, Inc., dba Kay's Kloset ("PSKS"), lost its antitrust contest with Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. at the Supreme Court. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007). PSKS argued to the Court that the 99 year old rule that makes minimum resale price maintenance agreements ("RPM") illegal per se should be upheld. The Court instead held that the appropriate standard of review for resale price maintenance agreements ("RPM") is the rule of reason, not the per se standard. The Court remanded PSKS's case to the lower court to determine whether Leegin's RPM conduct was unlawful under the rule of reason standard.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 2, 2009, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of an antitrust complaint against national credit reporting agency, Equifax, for lack of antitrust injury. CBC Companies, Inc. v. Equifax, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 860225 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 2009).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 24, 2009, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant pesticide manufacturers, dismissing allegations that the manufacturers conspired with their distributors to set minimum resale prices. The Court affirmed a finding that a genuine agency relationship existed between the manufacturers and their distributors, which precluded the existence of an agreement under the Sherman Act. Valuepest.com of Charlotte, Inc. v. Bayer Corp. 2009 WL 756901 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2009).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 8, 2009, the Chancellor of the High Court (who is the head of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales) granted an application by British Airways ("BA") to strike out the representative element of a claim for damages arising from its alleged participation in an air cargo cartel. The claimants, Emerald Suppliers Ltd, imported cut flowers from Colombia and Kenya using the air freight services of BA and other international airlines. They alleged that BA had been party to agreements to fix the prices at which air freight services were supplied, or to control or share the market for the supply of those services in breach of the EC and UK competition rules (the "Claim"). The claimants asserted that they were "direct or indirect purchasers of air freight services the prices for which were inflated by one or more of the agreements or concerted practices. As such, they are representative of all other direct or indirect purchasers of air freight services, the prices for which were so inflated."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 18, 2009, the Chinese Anti-monopoly Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce (“AMB”) issued its first rejection in the history of pre-merger filing under the Anti-monopoly Law (“AML”). Two days before the reviewing period deadline of 120 days, Coca-Cola (“Coke”) received the official decision issued by AMB rejecting its acquisition proposal of one of the biggest fruit juice manufacturers in China, HuiYuan Juice Group Co., Ltd., which is a listed Chinese company in the Hong Kong Stock market ("HuiYuan”).

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link