On July 3, 2010, the Justice Yates (the trial judge) overturned his decision after a bench trial convicting William Gilman and Edward McNenny of violating the Donnolly Act (New York’s antitrust statute) for rigging bids on insurance contracts.  According to the New York Times, he did so based on “newly discovered contradictory statements made by witnesses who cooperated with prosecutors, and the suppression of documents that would have been ‘invaluable’ to the defense.”  Gilman and McNenny are the only Marsh executives that were convicted after a trial.  As reported in earlier posts, Marsh paid an $850 million civil penalty and was not prosecuted.  One former Marsh executive pleaded guilty and others had their cases voluntarily dismissed by the government or were acquitted after a bench trial.

On February 23, 2010, the California Attorney General entered into a consent decree with Dermaquest, Inc., which prohibits Dermaquest from engaging in resale price maintenance.  Specifically, the order enjoins Dermaquest from requiring resellers to charge a specified price or to increase their prices.  The action was brought under the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law.  California now joins Illinois, New York and Michigan (see March 31, 2008 Post) in treating resale price maintenance as a per se offense in violation of its state antitrust law even though such conduct is subject to rule of reason review under section 1 of the Sherman Act after Leegin Creative Lether Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).  This case reinforces the dangers to a manufacture when it implements a resale price maintenance program under the belief that because such conduct might be permissible under the Sherman Act, there is no genuine exposure.  The California complaint and consent decree appear here: Dermaquest Complaint  and Dermaquest Judgment.

On November 19, 2009, the New York Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the charges arising from alleged bid rigging of insurance policies against Thomas T. Green, Jr. and William L. Burnie (former Marsh executives) and Geri Mandel (a former Zurich executive) was granted by Justice James Yates.  New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sought dismissal in light of the acquittals of Joseph Peiser, Greg Doherty and Kathleen Drake, former Marsh executives, after an 11-month bench trial before Justice Yates, who was to preside at the upcoming trial.  These acquittals were reported in the October 26, 2009 Post.  As you may recall (and discussed in the February 22, 2008 Post), two Marsh executives were convicted of Donnelly Act violations after a 10-month bench trial.  These cases were brought by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer.  Marsh paid $850 million to settle and another Marsh executive pleaded guilty.

In letters dated October 27, 2009 (State AG Letter re HR 3190; State AG Letter re S 148), 41 state attorneys general wrote to Congress asking them to overrule Leegin Creative Leather Product, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).  In Leegin, the Supreme Court held that resale price maintenance — the practice in which a manufacturer requires a retailer to sell its products at a certain price — was subject to the rule of reason.  In doing so, the Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), which held that resale maintenance is a per se violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The state attorneys general urge passage of H.R. 3190, which provides that “[a]ny contract, combination, conspiracy or agreement setting a minimum price below which a product or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler or distributor shall violate section 1 of the Sherman Act.”  As reported in the May 23, 2008 Post, 35 state attorneys general wrote to Congress on May 8, 2008 asking that it enact nearly identical legislation (S. 2261).

Practitioners should know that resale price maintenance can still be a per se violation of state antitrust laws.  As reported in the May 4, 2009 Post, Maryland enacted such a law.  And as reported in the March 31, 2008 Post, the New York, Michigan and Illinois attorneys general brought an action against Herman Miller in which they alleged that Herman Miller’s resale price maintenance program was a per se violation of their state antitrust laws.  Herman Miller entered into a consent decree.

Joseph Peiser, Greg Doherty and Kathleen Drake, former Marsh executives, were acquitted after an 11-month bench trial before Justice James Yates of violating New York’s antitrust law — the Donnelly Act.  They were acquitted of bid-rigging in connection with the sale of insurance policies.   As you may recall (and discussed in the February 22, 2008 Post), two Marsh executives were convicted of Donnelly Act violations after a 10-month bench trial.  These cases were brought by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer.  Marsh paid $850 million to settle and another Marsh executive pleaded guilty.

Maryland has amended its antitrust law to make resale price maintenance agreements per se illegal, thus overruling Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007).  In Leegin, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), and held that a resale price maintenance agreement in which the manufacturer requires a reseller to sell at a certain price is no longer a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act but instead is subject to rule of reason analysis.  Application of the rule of reason creates a burden on plaintiffs because they have to show that the restraint had an adverse effect on the relevant market and not just the price of the manufacturer’s goods that were subject to restraint.  This abrupt change in the law has been poorly received by state antitrust authorities.  As reported in the May 23, 2008 Post, 35  state attorneys general petitioned Congress to amend the Sherman Act to overrule Leegin.  And as reported in the March 31, 2009 Post, the state attorneys general of New York, Illinois and Michigan obtained a consent decree against Herman Miller in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for resale price maintenance involving the Aeron chair.  Their position was that their state antitrust law do not recognize the departure by Leegin and still provide that resale price maintenance is a per se offense.

On December 2, 2008, three Marsh executives went on trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County) on charges of violating the Donnelly Act in connection with bid rigging of insurance policies.  As you may recall (and discussed on the February 22, 2008 Post), two Marsh executives were convicted on Donnelly Act violations after a 10 month trial.  These cases have been brought by the New York Attorney General.  Marsh paid $850 million to settle and another Marsh executive pleaded guilty.

On October 20, 2008, the Antitrust Division, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming sued to enjoin JBS Beef’s acquisition of National Beef Packing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  (Beef Complaint; Beef Press Release)  The government alleges that the merger would combine the third and fourth largest U.S. beef packers, which would result in lower prices for cattle and higher prices for beef consumers.  This action is interesting in two respects.  First, one of the theories of competitive harm is that the beef packers will gain monopsony power.  While the monopsony theory is well established and has been pursued in Antitrust Division challenges to mergers (e.g., Cargill’s acquisition of Continental Grain’s Commodity Marketing Group), some academics reject it because it is inconsistent with the monopsonist’s economic interest to drive prices so low that suppliers exit.  Second, although venue and personal jurisdiction were available in any district where the companies did business, the government chose the Chicago as its forum.  It likely did so because it has received favorable treatment there in the past and Seventh Circuit cases are favorable to merger challenges.  For example, the government prevailed in United States v. UPM Kymmene Oyj (a case in which this author was trial counsel) even though the government’s case was at best shaky and viewed by many as without merit.

The attorneys general of Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of petitioner in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline, No. 07-512, which is pending before the Supreme Court.  This case raises the issue of whether a price squeeze claim can be maintained against a firm that does not have a duty to deal with the plaintiff.  As discussed in the Post of June 24, 2008, this case created a conflict between the Antitrust Division and FTC.  The Antitrust Division filed an amicus curiae brief supporting certiorai and urging reversal while the FTC issued a statement asserting that this case was not appropriate for certiorari and in any event, was correctly decided.  The brief (attached States Amicus Curiae Brief) filed by these nine state attorneys general supports the Antitrust Division’s position.

Resale price maintenance liability remains alive even after Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007) (holding that rpm agreements are now subject to the rule of reason). On June 17, 2008, the Third Circuit held that a Mack truck franchisee raised a triable issue of fact under the rule of reason concerning an alleged resale price maintenance scheme. Toledo Mack Sales & Serv. v. Mack Trucks, No. 07-1811, 2008 WL 2420729 (3d Cir. June 17, 2008). In particular, the Court held that the plaintiff came forward with sufficient evidence to show that the existence of an agreement between the manufacturer and dealers to stop discounting and the agreement may have caused prices to increase violating the rule of reason. Relying on Monsanto v. Spray-Rite Serv., 465 U.S. 752 (1984), the dealers’ frequent input and complaints about discounting were sufficient to raise a triable question over the existence of an agreement. With respect to the showing under the rule of reason, the dealer established that the manufacturer had sufficient power in the engine placed in front of the cab and the low cab over engine truck markets to control prices in those markets. Accordingly, its efforts to reduce intrabrand competition could have affected interbrand competition and caused prices to increase in the relevant markets. The Third Circuit rejected the R-P- Act claim holding that the statute does not apply to custom made goods of the type that were at issue in this case. The Third Circuit also rejected the statute of limitations defense holding that the plaintiff could rely on evidence of overt acts that took place before the limitations period to prove the existence of the conspiracy during the limitations period. Counsel must be careful in advising their clients about resale price maintenance. In addition to liability that can arise as demonstrated by this decision, state attorneys general remain active in this area. See March 14 and May 23, 2008 Posts.