October 17, 2010 – 4:58 pm
Update October 2010: Panasonic ($49.1 million) and Whirlpool (a subsidiary of Embraco North America) ($91.8 million) have agreed to pay criminal fines in the U.S. case. The investigation is on-going.
Update March 2009: An appliance company has filed a putative class action on behalf of appliance sellers against Whirlpool, Tecumseh, and Panasonic, three compressor manufacturers that believed to be under investigation by U.S. and European authorities for allegedly participating in price fixing scheme.
The EU confirmed surprise inspections of refrigeration and freezer compressor producers in Belgium and possibly other member states for possible price fixing violations. Two days later, the US Department of Justice confirmed that it too is investigating compressor manufacturers.
October 14, 2010 – 5:30 pm
Central District of CA Judge Dean Pregerson MeadWestvaco’s motion to dismiss in a case filed by Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, a competitor in the market for dated products such as calendars and datebooks. Blue Sky alleged that Mead holds about 90% of the market and that by offering bundled discounts to stores that purchase both Mead’s school supplies and dated products, Mead effectively excludes competitors from the dated product market. Mead’s motion argued that entry into the market was easy because no barriers existed. The court held that the complaint was sufficient to state a claim.
October 14, 2010 – 1:55 pm
In response to Apple’s decisions to permit cross border warranty service and permitting applications developers more freedom in selecting programming tools, the EC closed its investigation of the company’s I-phone-related practices.
October 14, 2010 – 1:45 pm
Northern District of Ill Judge David Coar has refused to dismiss a claim that sulfuric acid manufacturers responded to shocks to the market with an agreement to reduce output and fix prices. The court did dismiss the case with respect to GAC on the ground that the complaint contained insufficient allegations that it was a party to the conspiracy.
October 14, 2010 – 12:12 pm
Southern District of NY Judge Richard Howell has dismissed, without prejudice, a price discrimination case alleging that major auto-parts manufacturers discriminated in favor of large retailers, Wal-mart and Autozone. The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the allegations that the large retailers retail prices were lower than the wholesale price paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient to state a claim. According to the court, the plaintiffs were required to allege facts showing that those price differences were unjustified. The court held that alleging facts that could be illegal if other unstated facts exist is insufficient to state a claim.
October 14, 2010 – 12:00 pm
Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer has granted summary judgment to several banks charged with fixing the interchange fees on ATM transactions. The court held that the plaintiffs, bank customers, were indirect payers of the interchange fees, which are imposed directly on the banks. Although the customers likely bore the brunt of those fees thorough foreign ATM fees, they did allege that the banks conspired to fix the foreign ATM fees that the customers paid directly. Under the Illinois Brick rule, the court held that the plaintiffs could not recover damages and granted summary judgment.
October 14, 2010 – 9:47 am
District of Delaware Judge Legrome Davis has dismissed a putative class action alleging that the three dominant helicopter services providers in the Gulf of Mexico had agreed to increase prices. The court held that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the helicopter companies entered an agreement.
October 14, 2010 – 9:38 am
District of NJ Judge Mary Cooper has issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal her decision to deny defendant Sanofi’s motion to dismiss the claims against it on the ground that the plaintiff is a “mere distributor” and not a competitor. The court reasoned that there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion on the issue.
October 12, 2010 – 3:14 pm
The European Court of Justice has ruled that German State sports gambling monopolies are unjustifiable because they do not “consistently and systematically” confront risks involved in gambling. The monopolies were held to violate EU law because their advertising campaigns pursued maximum profits rather than the public interest reason for their monopoly status, combating crime or gambling addiction.
October 12, 2010 – 1:50 pm
Judge Lawrence O’Neil, E.D. CA, dismissed a claim by a tomato canning company against US Steel and a Korean steel manufacturer alleging that the two conspired to monopolize the market for steel used to make tin cans and to monopolize the market. The defendant’s argued that the plaintiff’s price fixing claims for damages were barred by the Illinois Brick rule because the plaintiff was an indirect purchaser of the defendant’s raw steel. The plaintiff countered that it was a direct purchaser of tin cans from a manufacturer that purchased raw materials from the defendants and was a party to the conspiracy. The court held that the conspiracy allegations were too vague, but gave the plaintiff the opportunity to amend.