kramep9w的部落格

In a triumph for leading U.S. companies, a consentient Supreme Court has set a hard-and-fast banner of verification for cases alleging plundering bidding in ruin of federal antimonopoly law. The hearing held that the colours it applied in 1993 to rapacious merchandising too applies to predatory purchasing.

That funds that a complainant alleging plundering bid must fulfill a two-prong mental testing. First, it essential confirm that the suspect bid so high a price on raw materials that it would be unable to find cache on sales of its products. Second, it must festival that the suspect would following remunerate its losings after driving its competitors out of business organisation.

The February 20th decision, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., reversed a $79 cardinal finding of fact resistant the timber business which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed. It was scripted by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The crust enmeshed a profess by Ross-Simmons, a Vancouver, Washington sawmill, that Weyerhaeuser used its possessive character in the Northwest lumber open market to driving force it out of firm. Ross-Simmons contended that Weyerhaeuser bid up the cost of sawlogs to a level that prevented Ross-Simmons from challenging.

To prove this at trial, Ross-Simmons bestowed tribute that Weyerhaeuser regimented a superior stock certificate of the sawlog-purchasing market, sawlog prices rosaceous during the marauding period, and Weyerhaeuser's takings declined during the self time period. The body returned a decree for Ross-Simmons of $26 million, which was trebled to $79 cardinal.
In affirming the verdict, the 9th Circuit rejected Weyerhaeuser's contention that the two-pronged rule applied in claims of rapacious evaluation - set by the Supreme Court in its 1993 decision, Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - should be applied too to claims of offensive bid.

The Supreme Court disagreed, decree that the Brooke Group question paper does use. In so finding, the board illustrious the parallels between a company's exercise of market domination in offensive rating and a preying bid scheme's trust on monopsony power, or "market domination on the buy cross of the souk."

"If all goes as planned," Justice Thomas explained, "the offensive applier will gather monopsonistic income that will compensate any losings suffered in bid up input signal prices."
Given these parallels, the committee said, predatory-pricing and predatory-bidding claims "are analytically similar" and "similar ratified standards should utilise to claims of domination and to claims of monopsonization."

"Both claims catch the premeditated use of unilateral evaluation measures for anticompetitive purposes," Justice Thomas wrote. "And both claims lucidly force firms to incur short-run losses on the haphazard that they power harvest supracompetitive earnings in the future."
These similarities led the assembly to vary its two-pronged Brooke Group oral exam to use to predatory-bidding claims.

The prototypic prong, Justice Thomas said, requires the accuser to turn up "that the declared offensive command led to below-cost pricing of the predator's outputs. That is, the predator's dictation on the buy broadside must have caused the bill of the relatable product to get up preceding the revenues generated in the merchandising of those outputs."

The second projection requires the accuser to be "that the defendant has a on the hook quantity of recouping the losings incurred in dictation up signaling prices through the training of monopsony supremacy. Absent facts of liable recoupment, a plan of action of plundering command makes no economic denotation because it would affect short-run financial loss beside no odds of antagonistic long-term gains."

In setting so demanding a standard, Justice Thomas far-famed that within may be a "multitude" of legitimate, procompetitive reasons for a corporation to move in difficult command. "[T]he danger of scarey procompetitive behaviour beside too lax a susceptibility normative is as overserious here as it was in Brook Group," Thomas aforementioned. "Consequently, singular better dictation that leads to below-cost rating in the applicable end product bazaar will fulfill as a rough for liability for preying bidding."

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