Supreme Court denial of certiorari leaves exclusive dealing and loyalty discount jurisprudence in flux
On 29 April 2013, the Supreme Court declined to review a recent Third Circuit ruling, ZF Meritor LLC v Eaton Corporation (Meritor), 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012), which implicated the ability of dominant manufacturers to provide loyalty or market share discounts to customers. The court’s decision to let the Third Circuit ruling stand could lead to uncertainty for manufacturers interested in using such discounts. Combined with the Federal Trade Commission’s recent focus on exclusive dealing arrangements, the Meritor case suggests a measure of caution when analysing arrangements that involve full or partial exclusivity or could be characterised as such.
The Meritor case arose out of a series of long-term supply agreements between Eaton Corporation, a manufacturer of transmissions for heavy duty trucks and the major manufacturers (OEMs) of heavy duty trucks in the United States. ZF Meritor, a competitor to Eaton, alleged that these agreements contained substantial discounts tied to market-penetration and purchasing targets, which caused the OEMs to buy most of their transmissions from Eaton and effectively locked Meritor out of the market. In October 2009, a jury found that Eaton violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and in June 2012, a divided Third Circuit panel upheld the verdict, characterizing Eaton’s agreements as “de facto” exclusive dealing contracts rather than supply agreements with pricing provisions. As a result, in order to prevail under the traditional exclusive dealing framework, ZF Meritor needed to demonstrate that the “probable effect” of the agreements was to substantially lessen competition, which the jury so found. Had the agreements been considered supply agreements with pricing provisions the standard as articulated by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group Ltd. V. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), and acknowledged by the Third Circuit in Meritor would have been whether Eaton was selling its transmissions below cost…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump