978-1285770178 Lecture Note BL ComLaw 1e IM-Ch26 Part 2

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 17
subject Words 2103
subject Authors Roger LeRoy Miller

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
page-pf2
12 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987 ANNOTATED
TITLE 4. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
SUBTITLE 6. BUSINESS PRACTICES
CHAPTER 75. UNFAIR PRACTICES
SUBCHAPTER 2. UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT
4-75-201 Title.
This subchapter shall be known and designated as the “Unfair Practices Act”.
4-75-202 Purpose.
The General Assembly declares that the purpose of this subchapter is to safeguard the public against the
creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and
discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.
4-75-203 Construction.
This subchapter shall be literally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.
4-75-204 Penalties.
Any person, firm, or corporation, whether as principal, agent, officer, or director, for himself, or itself, or for
another person, or for any firm or corporation, or any corporation who or which shall violate any of the
provisions of this subchapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each single violation and upon conviction shall be
punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)
or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the
court.
4-75-205 Forfeiture of charter, rights, etc. -- Proceedings.
(a) Upon the third violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter by any corporation, it shall be the duty
of the Attorney General to institute proper suits or quo warranto proceedings in any court of competent
jurisdiction for the forfeiture of its charter, rights, franchises, or privileges and powers exercised by the
corporation, and to permanently enjoin it from transacting business in this state.
(b) If in such action the court finds that the corporation is violating or has violated any of the provisions of this
subchapter, it must enjoin the corporation from doing business in this state permanently or for such time as
the court shall order, or must annul the charter or revoke the franchise of the corporation.
4-75-206 Contracts violating subchapter illegal.
Any contract, express or implied, made by any person, firm, or corporation in violation of any of the
provisions of this subchapter is declared to be an illegal contract and no recovery thereon shall be had.
4-75-207 Destruction of competition by price discrimination prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and
engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, or sale of any commodity or product or of service or
output of a service trade of general use or consumption or of the product or service of any public utility with
the intent to destroy the competition of any regular established dealer in the commodity, product, or service,
or to prevent the competition of any person, firm, private corporation, or municipal or other public corporation
who or which in good faith intends and attempts to become a dealer to discriminate between different
sections, communities, or cities or portions thereof, or between different locations in the sections,
communities, cities, or portions thereof in this state, by selling or furnishing the commodity, product, or
page-pf3
CHAPTER 26: ANTITRUST LAW 13
whole or in part.
service at a lower rate in one section, community, or city or any portion thereof, or in one location in the
section, community, or city or any portion thereof, than in another, after making allowance for difference, if
any, in the grade, quality, or quantity and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of production, if a
raw product or commodity, or from the point of manufacture, if a manufactured product or commodity.
(b) The inhibition of this section against locality discrimination shall include any scheme of special rebates,
collateral contracts, or any device of any nature whereby such discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected
in violation of the spirit and intent of this subchapter.
(c) This subchapter shall not be construed to prohibit the meeting in good faith of a competitive rate, or to
prevent a reasonable classification of service by public utilities for the purpose of establishing rates.
4-75-208 Secret payments or allowance of rebates, refunds, etc. -- Penalty.
(a) The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds, commissions, or unearned discounts, whether in
the form of money or otherwise, or secretly extending to certain purchasers special services or privileges not
extended to all purchasers purchasing upon like terms and conditions, to the injury of a competitor and
where the payment or allowance tends to destroy competition, is an unfair trade practice.
(b) Any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association resorting to such trade practice shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be subject to the penalties set out in § 4-75-204.
4-75-209 Sale at less than cost or with intent to injure competitors.
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, joint-stock company, or other
association engaged in business within this state, to sell, offer for sale, or advertise for sale any article or
product, or service or output of a service trade, at less than the cost thereof to the vendor, or to give, offer to
give, or advertise the intent to give away any article or product, or service or output of a service trade, for the
purpose of injuring competitors and destroying competition.
(2) Any person or entity so doing shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be subject to the
penalties set out in § 4-75-204 for any such act.
(b)(1) The term “cost” as applied to production is defined as including the cost of raw materials, labor, and all
overhead expenses of the producer; and, as applied to the distribution, “cost” shall mean the invoice or
replacement cost, whichever is lower, of the article or product to the distributor and vendor plus the cost of
doing business by the distributor and vendor.
(2) The “cost of doing businessor overhead expense” is defined as all costs of doing business incurred in
the conduct of the business and must include without limitation the following items of expense: labor, which
includes salaries of executives and officers, rent, interest on borrowed capital, depreciation, selling cost,
maintenance of equipment, delivery cost, credit losses, all types of licenses, taxes, insurance, and
advertising.
(c) In establishing the cost of a given article or product to the distributor and vendor, the invoice cost of the
article or product purchased at a forced, bankrupt, closeout sale, or other sale outside of the ordinary
channels of trade may not be used as a basis for justifying a price lower than one based upon the
replacement cost as of date of the sale of the article or product replaced through the ordinary channels of
trade, unless:
page-pf4
14 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
(1) The article or product is kept separate from goods purchased in the ordinary channels of trade; and
(2) The article or product is advertised and sold as merchandise purchased at a forced, bankrupt, or closeout
sale, or by means other than through the ordinary channels of trade, and the advertising states the
conditions under which the goods were so purchased, and the quantity of the merchandise to be sold or
offered for sale.
(d) In any injunction proceeding or in the prosecution of any person as officer, director, or agent, it shall be
sufficient to allege and prove the unlawful intent of the person, firm, or corporation for whom or which he
acts.
(e) Where a particular trade or industry of which the person, firm, or corporation complained against is a
member has an established cost survey for the locality and vicinity in which the offense is committed, the
cost survey shall be deemed competent evidence to be used in proving the costs of the person, firm, or
corporation complained against within the provisions of this subchapter.
(f) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any sale made:
(1) In closing out in good faith the owner’s stock or any part thereof for the purpose of discontinuing his trade
in the stock or commodity, and, in the case of the sale of seasonal goods or to the bona fide sale of
perishable goods, to prevent loss to the vendor by spoilage or depreciation, if notice is given to the public
thereof;
(2) When the goods are damaged or deteriorated in quality, and notice is given to the public thereof;
(3) By an officer acting under the orders of any court;
(4) In an endeavor made in good faith to meet the legal prices of a competitor as herein defined selling the
same article or product, or service or output of a service trade, in the same locality or trade area.
(g) Any person, firm, or corporation who performs work upon, renovates, alters, or improves any personal
property belonging to another person, firm, or corporation shall be construed to be a vendor within the
meaning of this subchapter.
4-75-210 Liability of directors, officers, agents, etc. -- Proof of unlawful intent.
(a) Any person who, either as director, officer, or agent of any firm or corporation or as agent of any person
violating the provisions of this subchapter, assists or aids, directly or indirectly, in the violation shall be
responsible therefore equally with the person, firm, or corporation for whom or which he acts.
(b) In the prosecution of any person as officer, director, or agent, it shall be sufficient to allege and prove the
unlawful intent of the person, firm, or corporation for whom or which he acts.
4-75-211 Remedies -- Witnesses and documents -- Immunity.
(a) Any person, firm, private corporation, or municipal or other public corporation, or trade association, may
maintain an action to enjoin a continuance of any act or acts in violation of this subchapter and, if injured
thereby, for the recovery of damages.
(b)(1) If, in such action, the court shall find that the defendant is violating or has violated any of the provisions
of this subchapter, it shall enjoin the defendant from a continuance thereof.
page-pf5
CHAPTER 26: ANTITRUST LAW 15
whole or in part.
(2) It shall not be necessary that actual damages to the plaintiff be alleged or proved.
(3) In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiff in the action shall be entitled to recover from the defendant
three (3) times the amount of the actual damages, if any, sustained.
(c)(1) Any defendant in an action brought under the provisions of this section or any witness desired by the
state may be required to testify under the provisions of §§ 16-43-211 and 16-43-701.
(2) In addition, the books and records of any such defendant may be brought into court and introduced, by
reference, into evidence.
(3) However, no information so obtained may be used against the defendant as a basis for a misdemeanor
prosecution under the provisions of §§ 4-75-204 and 4-75-2074-75-210.
(d) The remedies prescribed in this subchapter are cumulative and in addition to the remedies prescribed in
the Public Utilities Act, § 23-1-101 et seq., for discrimination by public utilities. If any conflict shall arise
between this subchapter and the Public Utilities Act, § 23-1-101 et seq., the latter shall prevail.
1. Monopoly Power
Monopoly refers to control by a single entity. Monopoly power is the power to control prices or
exclude competition. If a firm has sufficient market power to affect prices and output, it may be a
monopoly even though it is not the sole seller in the market. To define a firm’s market power, courts
look to its share of the relevant market.
CASE SYNOPSIS
Case 26.2: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. makes and sells para-aramid fiber. Only three producers of the fiber
DuPont (based in the United Stated), Teijin (Dutch), and Kolon (based in South Korea)sell it in the U.S.
market. DuPont filed a suit in a federal district court against Kolon, a new entrant to the market, for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Kolon counterclaimed that DuPont monopolized and attempted to
monopolize the para-aramid market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. DuPont filed a motion to
dismiss the counterclaim, which the court granted. Kolon appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Kolon alleged sufficient facts to overcome the
motion to dismiss. DuPont controls over 70 percent of the U.S. para-aramid fiber marketthis shows its
monopoly power. DuPont imposed multiyear agreements on its high-volume customers, thereby limiting the
other producers’ ability to compete. DuPont’s conduct has had a direct, substantial, and adverse effect on
competition. Further, DuPont’s conduct has constrained the only potential entrant [Kolon] to the United States
in decades from effectively entering the market.”
..................................................................................................................................................
Notes and Questions
How might the imposition of multiyear contracts on DuPont’s customers benefit consumers? If the
contracts cause the customers to buy more fiber than they otherwise might, the purchases will likely lead to
page-pf6
16 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
the manufacture of more fiber-based products. And increases in output generally result in lower prices to
consumers. The customers might even be induced to find other uses for the fiber, which could lead to more
products, or improved products, or other economic efficiencies.
How might the imposition of multiyear contracts on DuPont’s customers harm consumers?
Consumer benefits might not result if the customers are induced to buy more fiber but do not use the excess
to produce more output or to find other uses for it. Also, any increase in purchases from DuPont could offset
purchases from DuPont’s competitors, which is exactly what Kolon alleged in this case.
ANSWER TO “WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?”
QUESTION IN CASE 26.2
Suppose that DuPont had 45 percent of the market and Kolon and numerous other competitors
had the remaining 55 percent. Would the appellate court have ruled the same way? Why or why not?
Probably not. Most Section 2 Sherman Act claims that succeed involve companies that have over 50 percent
of market share. A plaintiff must prove both monopoly power and an intent to monopolize to succeed. If there
had been numerous competitors, the court would have been hard pressed to agree that DuPont’s actions had
created or attempted to create a monopoly in the para-aramid fiber market. There would have been
insufficient evidence that the firm had monopoly power such that it could control prices or restrict output.
ADDITIONAL CASES ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE
Other cases including claims of monopolization include the following:
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (in a cola syrup manufacturer’s suit against a
competitor, alleging in part monopolization based on the defendant’s distributorship agreements with
independent food service distributors (IFD) that prohibited the IFDs from delivering the plaintiff’s products to
any of their customers, the competitor lacked market power to support the claim when it had only a 64-
percent share of the total fountain syrup sales by the three largest suppliers).
Tate v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 230 F.Supp.2d 1072 (N.D.Cal. 2002) (a natural gas utility had
monopoly power in the market of supplying specialized natural gas technologies in its service area, for the
purpose of antitrust claims asserted by the seller of portable gas liquefaction devices, even though the utility
was not yet in the business of selling such devices, because the essence of the seller’s claim was that the
utility had acted to protect its existing business and to clear the way for its future entry into the liquefied gas
supply business).
General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A., 205 F.Supp.2d 1335 (S.D.Fla. 2002) (there was no
dangerous probability that a Spanish cigar manufacturer would be successful in achieving a monopoly, for
purposes of an attempted monopolization claim, where the manufacturer had only a 39-percent market share
in the markets for cigars and non-Cuban premium cigars, and there were no barriers to entry in markets).
Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 201 F.Supp.2d 236 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (a supplier of raw material for a drug manufacturer’s product lacked power in the relevant market, for
page-pf7
whole or in part.
page-pf8
18 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to oversee the distribution of domain names. At that
time, NSI’s domain name registration service was divided into two separate units: a registrar and a registry
(the Registry).a
The registrar unit continues to register domain names although it is now only one of eighty or so
accredited registrars in operation. The Registry, in contrast, is the only entity of its kind. It maintains a
centralized “WHOIS” database of all domain names using the “.com,” “.org,” and “.net” top level domains,
regardless of whether the names have been registered by NSI or one of the other accredited registrars. The
Registry’s WHOIS database allows all registrars to determine almost instantaneously which domain names
are already registered and therefore unavailable to others. The public can also access the Registry’s WHOIS
database.
At the time Smith brought his suit, the WHOIS database included approximately 163,000 expired domain
namesnames that had been registered but belonged to registrants who had failed to pay the required
registration renewal fees. NSI’s policy was to give registrants a “grace period” of two to three months in which
they could renew their expired registration. In the meantime, the names remained on the WHOIS database
and were unavailable for others.
WHAT IS THE RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKET?
Smith claimed that by failing to make expired domain names available to himself and others, NSI had
intentionally maintained an unlawful monopoly over expired domain names in violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act. The court, however, concluded that the relevant product market was not expired domain names
but all domain namesand NSI did not have monopoly power over all domain names. The court reasoned
that “the relevant market includes those commodities or services that are reasonably interchangeable.”
Because of the “virtually limitless” supply of domain names, said the court, “there will always be reasonable
substitute names available for any given name kept out of circulation.”b
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Do you agree that the relevant market for domain names should include all domain names and not
just those that have expired? Why or why not?
a. In 2000, NSI became a wholly owned subsidiary of VeriSign, Inc., and the Registry was subsequently renamed VeriSign Global
Registry Services. Both NSI and VeriSign were defendants in this case.
b. Smith v. Network Solutions, Inc., 135 F.Supp.2d 1159 (N.D.Ala. 2001).
b. Relevant Geographic Market
The geographic market is that section of the country within which a firm can increase its price a
bit without attracting new sellers or without losing many customers to alternative suppliers
outside that area.
3. The Intent Requirement
a. Why Intent Is Required
The acquisition of monopoly power is not an antitrust violation if it results from
Business acumengood management and efficiency.
The development of a superior product.
page-pf9
CHAPTER 26: ANTITRUST LAW 19
whole or in part.
An historic accident.
b. Inferred from Anticompetitive Conduct
If a firm possesses market power as a result of some purposeful act to acquire or to maintain
that power through anticompetitive means, it is a violation of Section 2.
4. Unilateral Refusals to Deal
Refusals to deal involve manufacturers who refuse to deal with retailers or dealers who cut prices to
levels substantially below the manufacturers’ suggested retail prices. A refusal to deal is not a
violation of Section 1, although it may violate Section 2, depending on the monopoly power of the
firm refusing to deal and the anticompetitive effect on the market.
B. ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE
This offense may involve predatory pricing (defined above) or predatory biddingthe acquisition and
use of monopsony power (market power on the buy side). This occurs when a buyer bids up the price of
an input too high for competitors to pay, forcing them out of the market. Cases involving attempts to
monopolize require proof of
Anticompetitive conduct.
Intent to exclude competitors and garner monopoly power.
A dangerous probability of successa serious threat of monopolizationwhich exists only when a
party has some degree of market power.
IV. The Clayton Act
The Clayton Act targets specific practices that substantially reduce competition or could lead to monopoly
power but are not clearly prohibited by the Sherman Act. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) enforce the act. Private parties may also sue for treble damages and attorneys’
fees.
A. SECTION 2PRICE DISCRIMINATION
Price discrimination occurs when a seller charges different prices to competitive buyers.
1. Required Elements
The seller must be engaged in interstate commerce.
The goods must be of like grade or quality.
The goods must have been sold to two or more buyers.
The effect of the price discrimination must be to substantially lessen competition or create a
competitive injury.
2. Defenses
Cost justificationa buyer’s purchases saved a seller costs in producing and selling goods.
Meeting a competitor’s priceswhen a lower price is charged temporarily and in good faith to
meet another seller’s equally low price to the buyer’s competitor.
Changing market conditionschanging conditions affected the market for or marketability of
the goods.
page-pfa
20 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
State Antitrust Laws
All fifty states have adopted their own antitrust laws, many of which are nearly identical federal antitrust
statutes. For this reason, state courts often rely on the decisions of federal courts in interpreting and applying
state antitrust laws. State courts vary in their interpretations, however, when there is a difference between
federal and state statutes or policy. The following is a state predatory-pricing statute that is similar to those
in about half of the states.
ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987 ANNOTATED
TITLE 4. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
SUBTITLE 6. BUSINESS PRACTICES
CHAPTER 75. UNFAIR PRACTICES
SUBCHAPTER 2. UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT
4-75-201 Title.
This subchapter shall be known and designated as the “Unfair Practices Act”.
4-75-202 Purpose.
The General Assembly declares that the purpose of this subchapter is to safeguard the public against the
creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and
discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.
4-75-203 Construction.
This subchapter shall be literally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.
4-75-204 Penalties.
Any person, firm, or corporation, whether as principal, agent, officer, or director, for himself, or itself, or for
another person, or for any firm or corporation, or any corporation who or which shall violate any of the
provisions of this subchapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each single violation and upon conviction shall be
punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)
or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the
court.
4-75-205 Forfeiture of charter, rights, etc. -- Proceedings.
(a) Upon the third violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter by any corporation, it shall be the duty
of the Attorney General to institute proper suits or quo warranto proceedings in any court of competent
jurisdiction for the forfeiture of its charter, rights, franchises, or privileges and powers exercised by the
corporation, and to permanently enjoin it from transacting business in this state.
(b) If in such action the court finds that the corporation is violating or has violated any of the provisions of this
subchapter, it must enjoin the corporation from doing business in this state permanently or for such time as
the court shall order, or must annul the charter or revoke the franchise of the corporation.
4-75-206 Contracts violating subchapter illegal.
Any contract, express or implied, made by any person, firm, or corporation in violation of any of the
provisions of this subchapter is declared to be an illegal contract and no recovery thereon shall be had.
12 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987 ANNOTATED
TITLE 4. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
SUBTITLE 6. BUSINESS PRACTICES
CHAPTER 75. UNFAIR PRACTICES
SUBCHAPTER 2. UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT
4-75-201 Title.
This subchapter shall be known and designated as the “Unfair Practices Act”.
4-75-202 Purpose.
The General Assembly declares that the purpose of this subchapter is to safeguard the public against the
creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and
discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.
4-75-203 Construction.
This subchapter shall be literally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.
4-75-204 Penalties.
Any person, firm, or corporation, whether as principal, agent, officer, or director, for himself, or itself, or for
another person, or for any firm or corporation, or any corporation who or which shall violate any of the
provisions of this subchapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each single violation and upon conviction shall be
punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)
or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the
court.
4-75-205 Forfeiture of charter, rights, etc. -- Proceedings.
(a) Upon the third violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter by any corporation, it shall be the duty
of the Attorney General to institute proper suits or quo warranto proceedings in any court of competent
jurisdiction for the forfeiture of its charter, rights, franchises, or privileges and powers exercised by the
corporation, and to permanently enjoin it from transacting business in this state.
(b) If in such action the court finds that the corporation is violating or has violated any of the provisions of this
subchapter, it must enjoin the corporation from doing business in this state permanently or for such time as
the court shall order, or must annul the charter or revoke the franchise of the corporation.
4-75-206 Contracts violating subchapter illegal.
Any contract, express or implied, made by any person, firm, or corporation in violation of any of the
provisions of this subchapter is declared to be an illegal contract and no recovery thereon shall be had.
4-75-207 Destruction of competition by price discrimination prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and
engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, or sale of any commodity or product or of service or
output of a service trade of general use or consumption or of the product or service of any public utility with
the intent to destroy the competition of any regular established dealer in the commodity, product, or service,
or to prevent the competition of any person, firm, private corporation, or municipal or other public corporation
who or which in good faith intends and attempts to become a dealer to discriminate between different
sections, communities, or cities or portions thereof, or between different locations in the sections,
communities, cities, or portions thereof in this state, by selling or furnishing the commodity, product, or
CHAPTER 26: ANTITRUST LAW 13
whole or in part.
service at a lower rate in one section, community, or city or any portion thereof, or in one location in the
section, community, or city or any portion thereof, than in another, after making allowance for difference, if
any, in the grade, quality, or quantity and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of production, if a
raw product or commodity, or from the point of manufacture, if a manufactured product or commodity.
(b) The inhibition of this section against locality discrimination shall include any scheme of special rebates,
collateral contracts, or any device of any nature whereby such discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected
in violation of the spirit and intent of this subchapter.
(c) This subchapter shall not be construed to prohibit the meeting in good faith of a competitive rate, or to
prevent a reasonable classification of service by public utilities for the purpose of establishing rates.
4-75-208 Secret payments or allowance of rebates, refunds, etc. -- Penalty.
(a) The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds, commissions, or unearned discounts, whether in
the form of money or otherwise, or secretly extending to certain purchasers special services or privileges not
extended to all purchasers purchasing upon like terms and conditions, to the injury of a competitor and
where the payment or allowance tends to destroy competition, is an unfair trade practice.
(b) Any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association resorting to such trade practice shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be subject to the penalties set out in § 4-75-204.
4-75-209 Sale at less than cost or with intent to injure competitors.
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, joint-stock company, or other
association engaged in business within this state, to sell, offer for sale, or advertise for sale any article or
product, or service or output of a service trade, at less than the cost thereof to the vendor, or to give, offer to
give, or advertise the intent to give away any article or product, or service or output of a service trade, for the
purpose of injuring competitors and destroying competition.
(2) Any person or entity so doing shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be subject to the
penalties set out in § 4-75-204 for any such act.
(b)(1) The term “cost” as applied to production is defined as including the cost of raw materials, labor, and all
overhead expenses of the producer; and, as applied to the distribution, “cost” shall mean the invoice or
replacement cost, whichever is lower, of the article or product to the distributor and vendor plus the cost of
doing business by the distributor and vendor.
(2) The “cost of doing businessor overhead expense” is defined as all costs of doing business incurred in
the conduct of the business and must include without limitation the following items of expense: labor, which
includes salaries of executives and officers, rent, interest on borrowed capital, depreciation, selling cost,
maintenance of equipment, delivery cost, credit losses, all types of licenses, taxes, insurance, and
advertising.
(c) In establishing the cost of a given article or product to the distributor and vendor, the invoice cost of the
article or product purchased at a forced, bankrupt, closeout sale, or other sale outside of the ordinary
channels of trade may not be used as a basis for justifying a price lower than one based upon the
replacement cost as of date of the sale of the article or product replaced through the ordinary channels of
trade, unless:
14 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
(1) The article or product is kept separate from goods purchased in the ordinary channels of trade; and
(2) The article or product is advertised and sold as merchandise purchased at a forced, bankrupt, or closeout
sale, or by means other than through the ordinary channels of trade, and the advertising states the
conditions under which the goods were so purchased, and the quantity of the merchandise to be sold or
offered for sale.
(d) In any injunction proceeding or in the prosecution of any person as officer, director, or agent, it shall be
sufficient to allege and prove the unlawful intent of the person, firm, or corporation for whom or which he
acts.
(e) Where a particular trade or industry of which the person, firm, or corporation complained against is a
member has an established cost survey for the locality and vicinity in which the offense is committed, the
cost survey shall be deemed competent evidence to be used in proving the costs of the person, firm, or
corporation complained against within the provisions of this subchapter.
(f) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any sale made:
(1) In closing out in good faith the owner’s stock or any part thereof for the purpose of discontinuing his trade
in the stock or commodity, and, in the case of the sale of seasonal goods or to the bona fide sale of
perishable goods, to prevent loss to the vendor by spoilage or depreciation, if notice is given to the public
thereof;
(2) When the goods are damaged or deteriorated in quality, and notice is given to the public thereof;
(3) By an officer acting under the orders of any court;
(4) In an endeavor made in good faith to meet the legal prices of a competitor as herein defined selling the
same article or product, or service or output of a service trade, in the same locality or trade area.
(g) Any person, firm, or corporation who performs work upon, renovates, alters, or improves any personal
property belonging to another person, firm, or corporation shall be construed to be a vendor within the
meaning of this subchapter.
4-75-210 Liability of directors, officers, agents, etc. -- Proof of unlawful intent.
(a) Any person who, either as director, officer, or agent of any firm or corporation or as agent of any person
violating the provisions of this subchapter, assists or aids, directly or indirectly, in the violation shall be
responsible therefore equally with the person, firm, or corporation for whom or which he acts.
(b) In the prosecution of any person as officer, director, or agent, it shall be sufficient to allege and prove the
unlawful intent of the person, firm, or corporation for whom or which he acts.
4-75-211 Remedies -- Witnesses and documents -- Immunity.
(a) Any person, firm, private corporation, or municipal or other public corporation, or trade association, may
maintain an action to enjoin a continuance of any act or acts in violation of this subchapter and, if injured
thereby, for the recovery of damages.
(b)(1) If, in such action, the court shall find that the defendant is violating or has violated any of the provisions
of this subchapter, it shall enjoin the defendant from a continuance thereof.
CHAPTER 26: ANTITRUST LAW 15
whole or in part.
(2) It shall not be necessary that actual damages to the plaintiff be alleged or proved.
(3) In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiff in the action shall be entitled to recover from the defendant
three (3) times the amount of the actual damages, if any, sustained.
(c)(1) Any defendant in an action brought under the provisions of this section or any witness desired by the
state may be required to testify under the provisions of §§ 16-43-211 and 16-43-701.
(2) In addition, the books and records of any such defendant may be brought into court and introduced, by
reference, into evidence.
(3) However, no information so obtained may be used against the defendant as a basis for a misdemeanor
prosecution under the provisions of §§ 4-75-204 and 4-75-2074-75-210.
(d) The remedies prescribed in this subchapter are cumulative and in addition to the remedies prescribed in
the Public Utilities Act, § 23-1-101 et seq., for discrimination by public utilities. If any conflict shall arise
between this subchapter and the Public Utilities Act, § 23-1-101 et seq., the latter shall prevail.
1. Monopoly Power
Monopoly refers to control by a single entity. Monopoly power is the power to control prices or
exclude competition. If a firm has sufficient market power to affect prices and output, it may be a
monopoly even though it is not the sole seller in the market. To define a firm’s market power, courts
look to its share of the relevant market.
CASE SYNOPSIS
Case 26.2: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. makes and sells para-aramid fiber. Only three producers of the fiber
DuPont (based in the United Stated), Teijin (Dutch), and Kolon (based in South Korea)sell it in the U.S.
market. DuPont filed a suit in a federal district court against Kolon, a new entrant to the market, for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Kolon counterclaimed that DuPont monopolized and attempted to
monopolize the para-aramid market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. DuPont filed a motion to
dismiss the counterclaim, which the court granted. Kolon appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Kolon alleged sufficient facts to overcome the
motion to dismiss. DuPont controls over 70 percent of the U.S. para-aramid fiber marketthis shows its
monopoly power. DuPont imposed multiyear agreements on its high-volume customers, thereby limiting the
other producers’ ability to compete. DuPont’s conduct has had a direct, substantial, and adverse effect on
competition. Further, DuPont’s conduct has constrained the only potential entrant [Kolon] to the United States
in decades from effectively entering the market.”
..................................................................................................................................................
Notes and Questions
How might the imposition of multiyear contracts on DuPont’s customers benefit consumers? If the
contracts cause the customers to buy more fiber than they otherwise might, the purchases will likely lead to
16 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
the manufacture of more fiber-based products. And increases in output generally result in lower prices to
consumers. The customers might even be induced to find other uses for the fiber, which could lead to more
products, or improved products, or other economic efficiencies.
How might the imposition of multiyear contracts on DuPont’s customers harm consumers?
Consumer benefits might not result if the customers are induced to buy more fiber but do not use the excess
to produce more output or to find other uses for it. Also, any increase in purchases from DuPont could offset
purchases from DuPont’s competitors, which is exactly what Kolon alleged in this case.
ANSWER TO “WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?”
QUESTION IN CASE 26.2
Suppose that DuPont had 45 percent of the market and Kolon and numerous other competitors
had the remaining 55 percent. Would the appellate court have ruled the same way? Why or why not?
Probably not. Most Section 2 Sherman Act claims that succeed involve companies that have over 50 percent
of market share. A plaintiff must prove both monopoly power and an intent to monopolize to succeed. If there
had been numerous competitors, the court would have been hard pressed to agree that DuPont’s actions had
created or attempted to create a monopoly in the para-aramid fiber market. There would have been
insufficient evidence that the firm had monopoly power such that it could control prices or restrict output.
ADDITIONAL CASES ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE
Other cases including claims of monopolization include the following:
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (in a cola syrup manufacturer’s suit against a
competitor, alleging in part monopolization based on the defendant’s distributorship agreements with
independent food service distributors (IFD) that prohibited the IFDs from delivering the plaintiff’s products to
any of their customers, the competitor lacked market power to support the claim when it had only a 64-
percent share of the total fountain syrup sales by the three largest suppliers).
Tate v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 230 F.Supp.2d 1072 (N.D.Cal. 2002) (a natural gas utility had
monopoly power in the market of supplying specialized natural gas technologies in its service area, for the
purpose of antitrust claims asserted by the seller of portable gas liquefaction devices, even though the utility
was not yet in the business of selling such devices, because the essence of the seller’s claim was that the
utility had acted to protect its existing business and to clear the way for its future entry into the liquefied gas
supply business).
General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A., 205 F.Supp.2d 1335 (S.D.Fla. 2002) (there was no
dangerous probability that a Spanish cigar manufacturer would be successful in achieving a monopoly, for
purposes of an attempted monopolization claim, where the manufacturer had only a 39-percent market share
in the markets for cigars and non-Cuban premium cigars, and there were no barriers to entry in markets).
Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 201 F.Supp.2d 236 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (a supplier of raw material for a drug manufacturer’s product lacked power in the relevant market, for
whole or in part.
18 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to oversee the distribution of domain names. At that
time, NSI’s domain name registration service was divided into two separate units: a registrar and a registry
(the Registry).a
The registrar unit continues to register domain names although it is now only one of eighty or so
accredited registrars in operation. The Registry, in contrast, is the only entity of its kind. It maintains a
centralized “WHOIS” database of all domain names using the “.com,” “.org,” and “.net” top level domains,
regardless of whether the names have been registered by NSI or one of the other accredited registrars. The
Registry’s WHOIS database allows all registrars to determine almost instantaneously which domain names
are already registered and therefore unavailable to others. The public can also access the Registry’s WHOIS
database.
At the time Smith brought his suit, the WHOIS database included approximately 163,000 expired domain
namesnames that had been registered but belonged to registrants who had failed to pay the required
registration renewal fees. NSI’s policy was to give registrants a “grace period” of two to three months in which
they could renew their expired registration. In the meantime, the names remained on the WHOIS database
and were unavailable for others.
WHAT IS THE RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKET?
Smith claimed that by failing to make expired domain names available to himself and others, NSI had
intentionally maintained an unlawful monopoly over expired domain names in violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act. The court, however, concluded that the relevant product market was not expired domain names
but all domain namesand NSI did not have monopoly power over all domain names. The court reasoned
that “the relevant market includes those commodities or services that are reasonably interchangeable.”
Because of the “virtually limitless” supply of domain names, said the court, “there will always be reasonable
substitute names available for any given name kept out of circulation.”b
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Do you agree that the relevant market for domain names should include all domain names and not
just those that have expired? Why or why not?
a. In 2000, NSI became a wholly owned subsidiary of VeriSign, Inc., and the Registry was subsequently renamed VeriSign Global
Registry Services. Both NSI and VeriSign were defendants in this case.
b. Smith v. Network Solutions, Inc., 135 F.Supp.2d 1159 (N.D.Ala. 2001).
b. Relevant Geographic Market
The geographic market is that section of the country within which a firm can increase its price a
bit without attracting new sellers or without losing many customers to alternative suppliers
outside that area.
3. The Intent Requirement
a. Why Intent Is Required
The acquisition of monopoly power is not an antitrust violation if it results from
Business acumengood management and efficiency.
The development of a superior product.
CHAPTER 26: ANTITRUST LAW 19
whole or in part.
An historic accident.
b. Inferred from Anticompetitive Conduct
If a firm possesses market power as a result of some purposeful act to acquire or to maintain
that power through anticompetitive means, it is a violation of Section 2.
4. Unilateral Refusals to Deal
Refusals to deal involve manufacturers who refuse to deal with retailers or dealers who cut prices to
levels substantially below the manufacturers’ suggested retail prices. A refusal to deal is not a
violation of Section 1, although it may violate Section 2, depending on the monopoly power of the
firm refusing to deal and the anticompetitive effect on the market.
B. ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE
This offense may involve predatory pricing (defined above) or predatory biddingthe acquisition and
use of monopsony power (market power on the buy side). This occurs when a buyer bids up the price of
an input too high for competitors to pay, forcing them out of the market. Cases involving attempts to
monopolize require proof of
Anticompetitive conduct.
Intent to exclude competitors and garner monopoly power.
A dangerous probability of successa serious threat of monopolizationwhich exists only when a
party has some degree of market power.
IV. The Clayton Act
The Clayton Act targets specific practices that substantially reduce competition or could lead to monopoly
power but are not clearly prohibited by the Sherman Act. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) enforce the act. Private parties may also sue for treble damages and attorneys’
fees.
A. SECTION 2PRICE DISCRIMINATION
Price discrimination occurs when a seller charges different prices to competitive buyers.
1. Required Elements
The seller must be engaged in interstate commerce.
The goods must be of like grade or quality.
The goods must have been sold to two or more buyers.
The effect of the price discrimination must be to substantially lessen competition or create a
competitive injury.
2. Defenses
Cost justificationa buyer’s purchases saved a seller costs in producing and selling goods.
Meeting a competitor’s priceswhen a lower price is charged temporarily and in good faith to
meet another seller’s equally low price to the buyer’s competitor.
Changing market conditionschanging conditions affected the market for or marketability of
the goods.
20 INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL FOR BUSINESS LAW: COMMERCIAL LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS
whole or in part.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
State Antitrust Laws
All fifty states have adopted their own antitrust laws, many of which are nearly identical federal antitrust
statutes. For this reason, state courts often rely on the decisions of federal courts in interpreting and applying
state antitrust laws. State courts vary in their interpretations, however, when there is a difference between
federal and state statutes or policy. The following is a state predatory-pricing statute that is similar to those
in about half of the states.
ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987 ANNOTATED
TITLE 4. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
SUBTITLE 6. BUSINESS PRACTICES
CHAPTER 75. UNFAIR PRACTICES
SUBCHAPTER 2. UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT
4-75-201 Title.
This subchapter shall be known and designated as the “Unfair Practices Act”.
4-75-202 Purpose.
The General Assembly declares that the purpose of this subchapter is to safeguard the public against the
creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and
discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.
4-75-203 Construction.
This subchapter shall be literally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.
4-75-204 Penalties.
Any person, firm, or corporation, whether as principal, agent, officer, or director, for himself, or itself, or for
another person, or for any firm or corporation, or any corporation who or which shall violate any of the
provisions of this subchapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each single violation and upon conviction shall be
punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)
or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the
court.
4-75-205 Forfeiture of charter, rights, etc. -- Proceedings.
(a) Upon the third violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter by any corporation, it shall be the duty
of the Attorney General to institute proper suits or quo warranto proceedings in any court of competent
jurisdiction for the forfeiture of its charter, rights, franchises, or privileges and powers exercised by the
corporation, and to permanently enjoin it from transacting business in this state.
(b) If in such action the court finds that the corporation is violating or has violated any of the provisions of this
subchapter, it must enjoin the corporation from doing business in this state permanently or for such time as
the court shall order, or must annul the charter or revoke the franchise of the corporation.
4-75-206 Contracts violating subchapter illegal.
Any contract, express or implied, made by any person, firm, or corporation in violation of any of the
provisions of this subchapter is declared to be an illegal contract and no recovery thereon shall be had.

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.