On May 6, 2008, the FTC granted Nine West’s petition to modify its consent decree to allow Nine West to engage in resale price maintenance with its dealers. In 2000, Nine West — a footwear manufacturer — had entered into a consent decree with the FTC and several state attorneys general to resolve allegations that it fixed the prices at which its retailers may sell its shoes. Because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007), which allowed such agreements to be treated under the rule of reason rather than subject to per se condemnation, the FTC allowed Nine West to engage in resale price maintenance but did not rule that such conduct would be necessarily lawful. Rather, the consent decree requires to Nine West to provide periodic reports to the FTC of prices and output during periods when it has engaged in resale price maintenance. As a practical matter, modification of the consent decree may be bring little comfort as some state attorneys general have taken the position that resale price maintenance is still a per se violation of their antitrust statutes. Herman Miller (discussed in the March 31, 2008 post) is an example of such an application of the state antitrust antitrust laws. Attached is the FTC’s order in Nine West. Nine West (Order)
Apr
08
Posted by : | On : April 8, 2008
On March 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to the Star Network’s fixed interchanges fees that was based on a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., No. C 04-02676 CRB, 2008 WL 793876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2008). This action challenges the fixed fee that the Star Network (through its members) pays to the owner of the ATM used by the cardholder. The court applied the rule of reason because the fixed fee is “reasonably necessary to the legitimate cooperative aspects of the venture.” Id. at *10 (citation omitted). The court concluded that fixed nature of “the fee promotes cooperation between the venture’s members and cannot be set individually. Under the circumstances, that is all Defendants must show to avoid a per se analysis.” Id. The court, however, certified the question for interlocutory appeal because there is “serious doctrinal confusion over the proper analysis of cooperative arrangements among competitors.” Id. at 12 (citation omitted).