mmyo68的部落格

In a conclusion for trunk U.S. companies, a unanimous Supreme Court has set a invariable standard of substantiation for cases alleging marauding command in vandalism of national antitrust law. The hearing control that the mean it applied in 1993 to marauding commerce as well applies to raiding purchase.

That way that a accuser alleging marauding speech act must ease a two-prong testing. First, it must variety that the litigator bid so soaring a charge on raw materials that it would suffer legal tender on sales of its products. Second, it essential verify that the defendant would next recoup its financial loss after driving its competitors out of company.

The February 20th decision, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., turned a $79 million prison term antagonistic the building material organization which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had stated. It was typewritten by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The travel case concerned a profess by Ross-Simmons, a Vancouver, Washington sawmill, that Weyerhaeuser nearly new its predominate arrangement in the Northwest firewood souk to propulsion it out of conglomerate. Ross-Simmons contended that Weyerhaeuser bid up the charge of sawlogs to a stratum that prevented Ross-Simmons from competing.

To be this at trial, Ross-Simmons bestowed testimony that Weyerhaeuser obsessed a overriding slice of the sawlog-purchasing market, sawlog prices rosaceous during the rapacious period, and Weyerhaeuser's earnings declined during the same fundamental quantity. The jury returned a finding for Ross-Simmons of $26 million, which was trebled to $79 million.
In affirming the verdict, the 9th Circuit rejected Weyerhaeuser's asseveration that the two-pronged stock applied in claims of marauding evaluation - set by the Supreme Court in its 1993 decision, Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - should be applied likewise to claims of offensive bidding.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ordinance that the Brooke Group experiment does utilise. In so finding, the committee known the parallels between a company's exercising of marketplace impetus in rapacious rating and a marauding dictation scheme's trust on monopsony power, or "market dominion on the buy side of the bazaar."

"If all goes as planned," Justice Thomas explained, "the raiding applicant will harvest monopsonistic profits that will beginning any losings suffered in speech act up input signal prices."
Given these parallels, the panel said, predatory-pricing and predatory-bidding claims "are analytically similar" and "similar court standards should utilize to claims of monopolisation and to claims of monopsonization."

"Both claims confuse with the calculated use of one-sided rating measures for anticompetitive purposes," Justice Thomas wrote. "And both claims lucidly need firms to incur short-run losses on the break that they may perhaps glean supracompetitive proceeds in the planned."
These similarities led the hearing to revise its two-pronged Brooke Group question paper to utilise to predatory-bidding claims.

The firstborn prong, Justice Thomas said, requires the accuser to be "that the alleged predatory speech act led to below-cost rating of the predator's outputs. That is, the predator's speech act on the buy haunch must have caused the bill of the in question production to be on your feet preceding the revenues generated in the sale of those outputs."

The 2nd projection requires the petitioner to turn out "that the defendant has a dodgy chance of recouping the losings incurred in dictation up signal prices finished the use of monopsony driving force. Absent impervious of probable recoupment, a scheme of predatory command makes no financial power because it would come to short losings beside no likeliness of compensative long-term gains."

In scene so controlling a standard, Justice Thomas notable that in that may be a "multitude" of legitimate, procompetitive reasons for a guests to act in complex bidding. "[T]he chance of scary procompetitive behavior beside too lax a liability regulation is as grave present as it was in Brook Group," Thomas said. "Consequently, simply sophisticated dictation that leads to below-cost pricing in the useful production marketplace will answer as a original for susceptibility for plundering bidding."

The conclusion is Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. ___ (2007).