Justia Antitrust & Trade Regulation Opinion Summaries

The defendant companies, based in China, produce conventional solar energy panels. Energy Conversion and other American manufacturers produce the newer thin-film panels. The Chinese producers sought greater market shares. They agreed to export more products to the U.S. and to sell them below cost. Several entities supported their endeavor. Suppliers provided discounts, a trade association facilitated cooperation, and the Chinese government provided below-cost financing. From 2008-2011, the average selling prices of their panels fell over 60%. American manufacturers consulted the Department of Commerce, which found that the Chinese firms had harmed American industry through illegal dumping and assessed substantial tariffs. The American manufacturers continued to suffer; more than 20 , including Energy Conversion, filed for bankruptcy or closed. Energy Conversion sued under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Michigan law, seeking $3 billion in treble damages, claiming that the Chinese companies had unlawfully conspired “to sell Chinese manufactured solar panels at unreasonably low or below cost prices . . . to destroy an American industry.” Because this allegation did not state that the Chinese companies could or would recoup their losses by charging monopoly prices after driving competitors from the field, the court dismissed the claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Without such an allegation or any willingness to prove a reasonable prospect of recoupment, the court correctly rejected the claim. View "Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd." on Justia Law

Deborah is a New Jersey charity hospital. CGPA is a group of New Jersey cardiologists. Because no CGPA physician could perform advanced cardiac interventional procedures (ACI) procedures, in 1992, CGPA and Deborah began a relationship that resulted in the transfer of numerous ACI patients to Deborah. In 2005, the CGPA doctors entered into an exclusive agreement to provide Virtua Hospital with cardiovascular services. Referrals to Deborah dropped off significantly. In 2006, CGPA hired a doctor who had previously worked at Deborah and was capable of performing some ACIs. CGPA terminated its agreement with Deborah. In 2007, CGPA signed agreements with doctors who worked primarily at Penn Presbyterian Hospital. Virtua is not mentioned in those contracts, but Deborah alleges that Virtua was an unnamed participant in negotiations and that the goal was to drive Deborah out of business. Deborah sued, asserting that this arrangement constituted an illegal restraint on trade and resulted in harm to competition, in violation of the Sherman Act. The district court granted Virtua and CGPA summary judgment, holding that Deborah did not introduce sufficient evidence to show injury to competition in the designated market. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting that Deborah identified the “products” and i the market at issue. Virtua did not challenge Deborah’s market definitions in the district court. Having set the parameters for the dispute, Deborah failed to meet its self-imposed burden. View "Deborah Heart & Lung Center v. Virtua Health Inc" on Justia Law

Clorox decided to sell the largest-sized containers of its products only to discount warehouses such as Costco and Sam’s Club. Ordinary grocery stores, including Woodman’s, could only obtain smaller packages. Arguing that package size is a promotional service, Woodman’s sued Clorox for unlawful price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(e). The district court denied Clorox’s motion to dismiss. On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Only promotional “services or facilities” fall within subsection 13(e). Size alone is not enough to constitute a promotional service or facility for purposes of subsection 13(e); any discount that goes along with size must be analyzed under subsection 13(a). The convenience of the larger size is not a promotional service or facility. View "Woodman's Food Mkt, Inc. v. Clorox Co." on Justia Law

Cortron appealed the district court's award of damages pursuant to a jury verdict of MacDermid on its claims for violations of federal and Connecticut antitrust laws, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, spoliation, and violations of Connecticut statutes prohibiting computer crimes and unfair trade practices. At issue are the requirements for proving an adverse effect on competition for purposes of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, in cases where the plaintiff has not proved that the allegedly anticompetitive behavior led to higher prices, reduced output, or lower quality in the market. The court held that a plaintiff may not prevail under the “rule of reason” merely by proving that (1) the defendant exercised “market power,” and (2) the challenged behavior may have misled consumers to believe that certain products were no longer available, without showing that consumers actually experienced reduced access to those products. In this case, the court agreed with Cortron that the district court erred in denying Cortron judgment as a matter of law with respect to MacDermid’s antitrust claims because MacDermid failed to present evidence that Cortron’s conduct harmed competition. Accordingly, the court reversed as to this claim. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for recalculation of damages. View "MacDermid Printing Sols. LLC v. Cortron Corp." on Justia Law

Appellants claim that some aluminum futures traders, having acquired some operators of aluminum warehouses, manipulated a price component for aluminum in the Detroit metro area. The district court dismissed the complaints and denied two groups of plaintiffs leave to amend, while permitting a third group to amend their complaint. The district court then concluded that appellants lacked antitrust standing because they did not demonstrate that they suffered antitrust injury or that they were efficient enforcers of the antitrust laws, and that they would be unable to show that they were efficient enforcers through repleading. The district court also determined that appellants failed to state a claim under various state consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws. The court held that appellants lack antitrust standing on the ground that they did not (and could not) suffer antitrust injury. The court also held that their state law claims were inadequately pleaded. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

The trial court found that VitalWorks, Inc. and Cerner Physician Associates, Inc. (together, Defendants) violated the Connecticut Unfair trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by making misrepresentations during the sale of practice management and electronic medical records software to Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. (Plaintiff). The Appellate Court reversed and directed the trial court to render judgment for Defendants on the CUTPA count, concluding that, under applicable choice of law principles, the law of New Mexico, rather than CUTPA, governed Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to its disposition of Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim and otherwise affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court did not err in determining that Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim is governed by New Mexico law, but the case must be remanded for a new trial so that New Mexico law can be applied to that claim. Remanded to the trial court for a new trial on Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim. View "Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs (purchasers of containerboard) filed suit under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, alleging that the defendants (producers and sellers of containerboard) agreed “to restrict the supply of containerboard by cutting capacity, slowing back production, taking downtime, idling plants, and tightly restricting inventory,” which led to an increase in the price of containerboard. The court certified a class under FRCP 23: All persons that purchased Containerboard Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or delivery in the United States from at least as early as February 15, 2004 through November 8, 2010. The proposed definition carved out the defendants themselves, entities or personnel related to them, and governmental entities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed after examining: whether common questions predominate; whether antitrust injury can be proved using a common method; whether the amount of damages can be proved using a common method; and whether a class action is superior. The court noted that no defendant challenged the Purchasers’ experts and there were few factual disputes. A “smattering” of individual contract defenses did not undermine the superiority of the (b)(3) class action. View "Kleen Prods. LLC v. Int'l Paper Co." on Justia Law

Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. processed used polystyrene products into a recycled polystyrene resin, which it sold to converters to use in a “green foam” line of products. Evergreen sued Defendants - the five largest converters of polystyrene products and a trade association - arguing that Defendants illegally agreed to refuse to deal with Evergreen in order to prevent polystyrene recycling from becoming viable and to maintain their market positions. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Evergreen failed to present evidence that tended to exclude the possibility that each polystyrene manufacturer independently chose not to partner with Evergreen as required by caselaw. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether there was a conspiracy. View "Evergreen Partnering Group v. Pactiv Corp." on Justia Law

Fred Duran filed a putative class action complaint against Obesity Research Institute, LLC (ORI) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (collectively, defendants). Duran alleged defendants falsely claimed that ORI's products, Lipozene and MetaboUp, had weight loss benefits. The court approved a claims-made settlement providing that class members submitting a claim without proof of purchase would receive $15, and those submitting receipt(s) would receive one refund of double the unit price paid. The settlement also provided that ORI would cease making certain assertions in product advertising. Defendants also agreed to not oppose a motion seeking $100,000 in attorney fees to class counsel. Objectors, class members DeMarie Fernandez, Alfonso Mendoza, and Brian Horowitz appealed, contending the settlement was the product of collusion. Objectors claimed the class did not receive sufficient notice of settlement, and the settlement was unreasonable and inadequate. They also contended the attorney fee award was excessive. The Court of Appeal reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court's judgment had to be reversed because the class notice failed in its fundamental purpose, to apprise class members of the terms of the proposed settlement. "The erroneous notice injected a fatal flaw into the entire settlement process and undermines the court's analysis of the settlement's fairness." View "Duran v. Obesity Research Institute" on Justia Law

In 2003, several class action lawsuits were filed against automobile manufacturers and trade associations, alleging antitrust conspiracy, Bus. & Prof. Code, 167201, and unfair business practices, Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200, on behalf of individuals who purchased or leased new vehicles in California within a certain time period. The lawsuits, which were eventually coordinated, alleged conspiracy to restrict the movement of lower-priced Canadian vehicles into the U.S. market, to avoid downward pressure on U.S. new vehicle prices. After years of litigation, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the two remaining defendants, Ford U.S. and Ford Canada, concluding that there was not sufficient evidence of an actual agreement among Ford and the other manufacturers to restrict the export of new vehicles from Canada to the U.S. The court of appeal affirmed with respect to Ford U.S., but concluded that the admissible evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a material factual issue as to whether Ford Canada participated in an illegal agreement to restrict the export of automobiles. The court noted an expert economic analysis indicating that the manufacturers would not have continued to restrict exports during the alleged conspiracy period absent an agreement that none of them would break ranks and reap the profits available in the export market; parallel conduct by the manufactures during the same period; and deposition testimony. View "In re: Auto. Antitrust Cases I and II" on Justia Law