Defendants Summary Judgment Motion in In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation May Illuminate Policy Justifications Behind Possession or Control Exception

Defendants Summary Judgment Motion in In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation May Illuminate Policy Justifications Behind Possession or Control Exception

Defendants Summary Judgment Motion in In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation May Illuminate Policy Justifications Behind Possession or Control Exception

Earlier this year, defendants within the In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation gone to live in challenge the standing of major retailers to pursue damages claims underneath the Supreme Court’s 1977 Illinois Brick decision. LG Electronics, Samsung, Panasonic, along with other manufacturers requested the U . s . States District Court for that Northern District of California to deny standing to Best To Buy, K-Mart, Costco, along with other so-known as “Direct Action Plaintiffs” who really purchased cathode ray tube (CRT) Finished Products and never CRT tubes themselves, quarrelling that purchasing CRT Finished Products, instead of CRT tubes, renders the “Direct Action Plaintiffs”-despite their name-indirect purchasers who’ve no antitrust standing to recuperate damages. Panasonic’s motion particularly presents a problem whether the “ownership or control” exception towards the rule barring indirect purchasers from recovering damages is relevant to a few of the purchases produced by the Direct Action Plaintiffs.

The “ownership or control” exception comes from a footnote within the Illinois Brick decision in which the court noted that indirect purchasers might have standing to file a lawsuit for damages “where the direct purchaser is owned or controlled by its customer” because that’s a situation “in which market forces happen to be replaced.” Ill. Brick Co. v. Ill., 431 U.S. 720, 736 n.16 (1977). In Sun Microsystems, Corporation. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Corporation., 608 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (N.D. Cal. 2009), an instructive situation on the use of the exception, a legal court held the direct purchasers weren’t sufficiently controlled through the cost-fixing conspirators so that the “ownership or control” exception permitted indirect purchasers to file a lawsuit for damages. A legal court ruled the “ownership or control” exception requires “functional economic or any other unity” between your defendant and direct purchaser so that “there effectively continues to be just one purchase.” Id. at 1180. However, a legal court also noted that “policy reasons for the Illinois Brick decision remain intact” because “to the extent the [direct purchasers] retain, and also have worked out, their to sue defendants, this confirms that market forces haven’t been replaced.” Id. at 1182.

Panasonic’s motion will probably require court to evaluate the actual policy reasons for the exception, which might finish up figuring out the outcomes. Panasonic has moved a legal court to strip standing from plaintiffs who purchased CRT Finished Products from Sanyo, a business that Panasonic purchased an possession stake in 2 years following the cost-fixing suit started. Panasonic argues the exception only applies whether it “owned or controlled” Sanyo during the conspiracy, which is undisputed that it didn’t. While plaintiffs haven’t yet filed their opposition for this motion, they’ll likely respond that the defendant shouldn’t be permitted to extinguish damages claims by obtaining the direct purchasers who’ve standing to file a lawsuit it. This seems is the first instance in which a court is directly confronted with the issue of whether possession or charge of an immediate purchaser is just relevant throughout the existence from the conspiracy. The way the court decides this motion can help illuminate if the relevant “market forces” that may be “superseded” by possession or charge of direct purchasers may be the ex ante marketplace for the cost-fixed product, or even the ex poste marketplace for private enforcement of antitrust law.

Flanders

Related Posts
Comments ( 4 )
  1. IRON MAN
    October 7, 2012 at 3:32 am
    Reply

    LIZARD

  2. marinemec
    October 7, 2012 at 3:32 am
    Reply

    What about Cuomo? We can only assume, Preet expects all of us to believe that this micromanaging control freak doesn’t have his hands dirty from the indictments so close to him? This smells like political posturing for both Cuomo and Preet, at the peoples expe1e once again! Anyone appointed by Obama cannot be trusted and yes, I and many othe1 will bring this to the table if Preet tries to run for governor! Cuomo needs to be stopped NOW, not later! Hear us Preet?

  3. Darkfire30
    October 12, 2012 at 3:32 am
    Reply

    Get a grip and quit the whinning act its a great game has many playe1 perhaps return after the expa1ion launches

  4. BaronGustav
    October 12, 2012 at 3:32 am
    Reply

    Hellooooo MMOBOMB have you forgotten about your contest??? ….Seems like it. Just pick some people or Call the contest cancelled or something this is getting rediculous. I know your short staffed now, but cmon this is absurd, it would take like 2 minutes out of someones day to do this drawing and send 5 Emails. Its gonna be May soon Jeeze.

Leave a reply