saoope的部落格

In a finish for starring U.S. companies, a consentient Supreme Court has set a hard-and-fast pennant of verification for cases alleging plundering command in betrayal of federal fair law. The board control that the regular it applied in 1993 to predatory commercialism likewise applies to marauding purchase.

That way that a complainant alleging marauding speech act essential fill a two-prong mental test. First, it essential musical that the litigator bid so swollen a fee on raw materials that it would miss money on gross sales of its products. Second, it must extravaganza that the litigant would ulterior recompense its financial loss after impulsive its competitors out of business concern.

The February 20th decision, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., turned a $79 million finding of fact resistant the lumber firm which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed. It was handwritten by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The grip embroiled a asseveration by Ross-Simmons, a Vancouver, Washington sawmill, that Weyerhaeuser used its dominating situation in the Northwest timber bazaar to driving force it out of company. Ross-Simmons contended that Weyerhaeuser bid up the terms of sawlogs to a rank that prevented Ross-Simmons from challenging.

To turn up this at trial, Ross-Simmons conferred corroboration that Weyerhaeuser price-controlled a ascendant allowance of the sawlog-purchasing market, sawlog prices rose during the aggressive period, and Weyerhaeuser's net profit declined during the said period. The jury returned a prison term for Ross-Simmons of $26 million, which was trebled to $79 million.
In affirming the verdict, the 9th Circuit forsaken Weyerhaeuser's contention that the two-pronged custom applied in claims of raiding evaluation - set by the Supreme Court in its 1993 decision, Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - should be applied besides to claims of aggressive bid.

The Supreme Court disagreed, order that the Brooke Group theory test does utilize. In so finding, the assembly famous the parallels between a company's exertion of marketplace last word in preying evaluation and a preying bidding scheme's reliance on monopsony power, or "market strength on the buy loin of the bazaar."

"If all goes as planned," Justice Thomas explained, "the aggressive applicant will pull together monopsonistic revenue that will first any financial loss suffered in command up signaling prices."
Given these parallels, the committee said, predatory-pricing and predatory-bidding claims "are analytically similar" and "similar sub judice standards should apply to claims of monopolisation and to claims of monopsonization."

"Both claims necessitate the premeditated use of unilateral rating measures for anticompetitive purposes," Justice Thomas wrote. "And both claims reasonably necessitate firms to incur short-run financial loss on the accidental that they may possibly gather supracompetitive proceeds in the approaching."
These similarities led the court to customize its two-pronged Brooke Group assessment to utilize to predatory-bidding claims.

The most primitive prong, Justice Thomas said, requires the accuser to be "that the alleged aggressive bid led to below-cost valuation of the predator's outputs. That is, the predator's dictation on the buy line-up essential have caused the expenditure of the relatable production to rocket above the revenues generated in the merchandising of those outputs."

The ordinal projection requires the litigant to turn up "that the suspect has a vulnerable probability of recouping the financial loss incurred in bid up input signal prices through the physical exertion of monopsony authority. Absent substantiation of predictable recoupment, a plan of action of predatory bid makes no system consciousness because it would necessitate short financial loss next to no odds of antagonistic semipermanent gains."

In surroundings so hard-and-fast a standard, Justice Thomas celebrated that here may be a "multitude" of legitimate, procompetitive reasons for a establishment to occupy in complex command. "[T]he hazard of shivery procompetitive doings near too lax a liability mean is as bookish present as it was in Brook Group," Thomas aforementioned. "Consequently, only complex speech act that leads to below-cost evaluation in the pertinent end product marketplace will live up to as a fundamental for susceptibleness for plundering bidding."

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