In Bell Atlantic et al v Twombly et al handed down on 21 May 2007 the Supreme Court explained what a plaintiff must plead in order to bring a claim under s.1 Sherman Act. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The Court (7-2) considered what sufficed and according to the dissent it made claims more difficult.
The facts are easily stated but we need a little background. The liberalisation of the telecommunications market in the US occurred in two stages. In the first stage the market was divided up and a competitive market created for long distance phone calls, while the market for local calls was left with regional monopolies (colloquially the Baby Bells). The Baby Bells were not allowed access to the long distance market. The then Telecommunications Act 1996 made two changes: (1) it abolished the Baby Bell's monopolies and gave entrants strong access rights to use the Baby Bells' facilities to enter the local market and (2) as a qui pro quo it allowed the Baby Bells (Now called ILECS - Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) to enter the long distance market.
The defendants here are the ILECS. The plaintiffs are clients of some of the firms that had tried to enter the local markets (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CLECS). They alleged a conspiracy by the ILECS that had two strands: first the ILECS agreed to make life difficult for new entrants by making access to their networks expensive (here recall the Trinko case of 2004), second the ILECS agreed not to compete against each other, so that an ILEC in one part of the US agreed not to try and compete against another ILEC. The plaintiffs alleged that without this conspiracy the market would have been more competitive, they would have got cheaper telecommunications services and so suffered antitrust injury as a result of this conspiracy.
All well and good, but did the plaintiffs have any evidence to prove this? They had an interesting statement by the Chief Executive Officer of one of the defendants, who said that competing with another ILEC "might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that doesn't make it right." Have we got enough here to bring a claim?
The majority said no. In line with the earlier case law, parallel behaviour is not sufficient on its own to prove that there is a conspiracy. From a procedural point of view, the Court said that the plaintiff must bring to the table more than an allegation of conspiracy, but some facts to show that the claim is not speculative, which would then entitle the plaintiff to discovery. But mere allegations based on parallel behaviour will not do.
In reaching this decision the Court was influenced by the size of this lawsuit it was a class action by 90% of the subscribes to local telephone or high speed internet against the largest telecommunications firms, for a 7 year conspiracy. The Court feared that if this case was allowed to proceed that the costs of discovery would be too high to bear and discovery too expensive to manage. So here is a tradeoff between the cost of litigation and the benefit of a successful claim. The Court's judgment has been described as a major win for defendants, especially corporate defendants.
This is probably a most significant judgment and it will be interesting to see how it affects stand-alone private litigation. If, before getting the right to discover evidence of a conspiracy you must already have some evidence, does it not create a Catch-22? (Obviously most corporations are sufficiently savvy to avoid placing in the public domain any confession of an agreement, so where is the plaintiff to get his evidence from?)
One small point which might go plaintiff's way is the reasoning of the Court when it considered the fact that the defendants did not try and compete against each other. The Court said: "In a traditionally unregulated industry with low barriers to entry, sparse competition among large firms dominating separate geographical segments of the market could very well signify illegal agreement, but here we have an obvious alternative explanation. In the decade preceding the 1996 Act and well before that, monopoly was the norm in telecommunications, not the exception. The ILECs were born in that world, doubtless liked the world the way it was, and surely knew the adage about him who lives by the sword. Hence, a natural explanation for the noncompetition alleged is that the former Government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors to do the same thing." So does this mean that if we find a scenario where say builiders based in Camden regularly refuse to carry out work in Westminster (these are London boroughs) and vice versa, that we have enough evidence to commence a trial?
The Court was not impressed with the CEO's statement either, and quoted this passage which I think is a helpful reminder that not everything that looks inefficient is anticompetitive: “[f]irms do not expand without limit and none of them enters every market that an outside observer might regard as profitable, or even a small portion of such markets.” Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶307d, at 155 (Supp. 2006). The dissent took a different line:
"What did he mean by that? One possible (indeed plausible) inference is that he meant that while it would be in his company’s economic self-interest to compete with its brethren, he had agreed with his competitors not to do so. According to the complaint, that is how the Illinois Coalition for Competitive Telecom construed Notebaert’s statement, id., ¶44, App. 22 (calling the statement “evidence of potential collusion among regional Bell phone monopolies to not compete against one another and kill off potential competitors in local phone service”), and that is how Members of Congress construed his company’s behavior, id., ¶45, App. 23 (describing a letter to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into the possibility that the ILECs’ “very apparent non-competition policy” was coordinated).
Perhaps Notebaert meant instead that competition would be sensible in the short term but not in the long run. That’s what his lawyers tell us anyway. See Brief for Petitioners 36. But I would think that no one would know better what Notebaert meant than Notebaert himself. Instead of permitting respondents to ask Notebaert, however, the Court looks to other quotes from that and other articles and decides that what he meant was that entering new markets as a CLEC would not be a “ ‘sustainable economic model.’ ”
On this basis, the dissent would at least have wished for a trial to hear what the CEO meant, and the dissent feared that now defendants would try and dismiss claims of conspiracy by hiring economists to 'prove' that it was not efficient to collude.
In a Europe thinking about expanding private action, the repercussions of this judgment are worth following closely.
Showing posts with label US antitrust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US antitrust. Show all posts
25 May 2007
05 April 2007
American Modernization Commission Report Published
The AMC released its report on 3 April, making several recommendations, a few highlights of relevance are summarised below. The AMC is the latest in a regular review of antitrust laws, one of the more well-kown previos commissions is the 'Neal Report' that had suggested stronger action against oligopoly markets.
The AMC's report finds the state of antitrust law as essentially sound. Importantly the report emphasises that antitrust is not about making markets work better. It is not an industrial policy instrument. As I suggest in my book, EC Competition Law is still seen as forming an important part of the Community's industrial policy.
Highlights of the report include:
1) abolish the Robinson-Patman Act (this is a much disliked statute prohibiting price discrimination).
2) Bundled rebates should be handled differently, suggesting a three stage test: (a) after allocating all discounts and rebates attributable to the entire bundle of products to the competitive product, the defendant sold the competitive product below its incremental cost for the competitive product; (b) the defendant is likely to recoup these short-term losses; and (c) the bundled discount or rebate program has had or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition.
The gist of this is broadly to apply a predatory pricing type test to rebates. This is along similar lines to the EC Commission, although it is a much less aggressive standard than that advocated by the Commission or that applied in British Airways (see earlier post).
3) Facilitate private litigation by allowing law suits by direct and indirect purchasers. The idea is that both types of plaintiffs be able to sue, and that they damages (based on the higher prices charged by the defendant) are divided up between direct and indirect purchasers. This is interesting because there are similar debates in Europe. For example, in Germany the law provides that direct purchasers can sue but indirect purchasers cannot. Is this a matter for Community Law?
The AMC's report finds the state of antitrust law as essentially sound. Importantly the report emphasises that antitrust is not about making markets work better. It is not an industrial policy instrument. As I suggest in my book, EC Competition Law is still seen as forming an important part of the Community's industrial policy.
Highlights of the report include:
1) abolish the Robinson-Patman Act (this is a much disliked statute prohibiting price discrimination).
2) Bundled rebates should be handled differently, suggesting a three stage test: (a) after allocating all discounts and rebates attributable to the entire bundle of products to the competitive product, the defendant sold the competitive product below its incremental cost for the competitive product; (b) the defendant is likely to recoup these short-term losses; and (c) the bundled discount or rebate program has had or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition.
The gist of this is broadly to apply a predatory pricing type test to rebates. This is along similar lines to the EC Commission, although it is a much less aggressive standard than that advocated by the Commission or that applied in British Airways (see earlier post).
3) Facilitate private litigation by allowing law suits by direct and indirect purchasers. The idea is that both types of plaintiffs be able to sue, and that they damages (based on the higher prices charged by the defendant) are divided up between direct and indirect purchasers. This is interesting because there are similar debates in Europe. For example, in Germany the law provides that direct purchasers can sue but indirect purchasers cannot. Is this a matter for Community Law?
22 February 2007
The Supreme Court and predatory bidding - lessons for the EU
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. Inc. (20 February 2007)
Defendant and plaintiff were competitors, both operated sawmills and purchased red alder sawlogs for their mills. Some of the logs are purchased through long term contracts, some are obtained from the mill owner’s property, and some are acquired through bidding. Plaintiff alleged that defendant placed bids at very high prices, forcing the price of logs to go up, thereby forcing plaintiff to pay more for his logs too, which forced plaintiff to increase his sales prices. The result was that defendant’s predatory strategy drove plaintiff out of business. In the lower courts plaintiff was successful in an action based on s.2 Sherman Act, in particular the courts did not think that predatory bidding was comparable to predatory pricing, so the strict standards set out by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group (1993) did not apply.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruled that predatory bidding is judged by the same standards as predatory pricing, and because plaintiff admitted it was unable to prove the elements required by Brooke Group, the claim was unsuccessful. The judgment comes a short time after the CFI ruled on predatory pricing (see earlier entry in this blog) and holds two lessons for the EU: (1) how to use economics to analyse disputes; (2) how to write judgments.
(1) The use of economics
First, the Court explored whether predatory bidding (the exercise of monopsony power; that is, buyer power) is comparable to predatory pricing. The logic is similar: in a first period the predator engages in a measure that raises rivals’ costs (here by bidding high, increasing the price of the inputs and forcing competitors to pay more); in a second period, once competitors have been driven out of business, the predator uses its monopsony power to force sellers of input to lower the prices. As with predatory pricing, the first period represent’s the predator’s ‘investment’ – he suffers losses of profit and his dominance allows him to survive while competitors go out of business. The second period is when he recovers that investment by getting low prices for the inputs, recovering the losses made in the first. Accordingly, the legal standard for predatory bidding should be the same as that for predatory pricing.
Second, the Court held that aggressive commercial tactics are the very essence of competition, and that there were a myriad of reasons why buying inputs at high prices could be innocent, or even pro-competitive: (1) miscalculation of input needs; (2) a response to increased consumer demand; (3) a more efficient firm might bid up input prices to gain market share in the output market; (4) a firm that adopted an input intensive production process might bid to increase the inputs; (5) a firm might buy a lot of inputs today to hedge against future shortages. ‘There is nothing illicit about these bidding decisions. Indeed, this sort of high bidding is essential to competition and innovation.’
Third, the Court noted that like predatory pricing, a failed attempt of predatory bidding is benign. The monopsonist who buys more goods, will be in a position to sell more to consumers, and provided he does not have monopoly power on the selling side, this means that consumers get more goods at competitive prices.
Two things follow from this analysis: (a) predatory bidding is a high risk strategy that has many efficiency justifications; (b) a failed attempt to achieve the rival’s exclusion does not harm consumers. Therefore, a high standard of proof is necessary or there is a ‘risk of chilling pro-competitive behaviour with too law a liability standard.’
The legal test therefore is the same as for predatory pricing: (1) the predatory bidding results in below cost output sales; (2) there is a dangerous probability that the losses in the first period will be recouped through the exercise of monopsony power.
When will European courts think about aggressive commercial behaviour in this way?
Even those who think that a more lenient standard should apply and that Europe is right to be tougher on predators might take an interest in the lower court’s decision. The 9th Circuit held that three things needed proof: anticompetitive conduct through predatory overbidding, intended specifically to eliminate competition, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power .
On intention, the court used evidence which in my mind is more compelling than that in the Wanadoo case. The court used three types of evidence: (1) Defendant’s anticompetitive conduct itself, (2) the testimony of Defendant’s employees, and (3) Defendant’s business projections regarding sawlog prices. Note that (2) is trial based testimony, not internal memoranda. Note also how items (1) and (3) show that Defendant had calculated what it would take to outs plaintiff. This evidence is much more specific than that which the CFI relied upon.
(2) Judicial Style
This decision is 16 pages of a pdf file. The first paragraph is a concise statement of the key points. The facts are examined in a succinct manner. Quotes from previous cases are brief and to the point. Academic literature is mentioned. The case can easily be read, and understood, while commuting on the tube. It is unfortunate that the style of judgment in the European Courts cannot be as clear and as concise.
Interestingly perhaps, the Court eschews mention of wider debates about the nature of S.2 monopolisation claims, a topical issue in light of the current hearings on single firm conduct. Perhaps the Court thinks it best if the law develops incrementally rather than setting out general standards for anticompetitive behaviour like the no economic sense test, or the as efficient competitor test.
Defendant and plaintiff were competitors, both operated sawmills and purchased red alder sawlogs for their mills. Some of the logs are purchased through long term contracts, some are obtained from the mill owner’s property, and some are acquired through bidding. Plaintiff alleged that defendant placed bids at very high prices, forcing the price of logs to go up, thereby forcing plaintiff to pay more for his logs too, which forced plaintiff to increase his sales prices. The result was that defendant’s predatory strategy drove plaintiff out of business. In the lower courts plaintiff was successful in an action based on s.2 Sherman Act, in particular the courts did not think that predatory bidding was comparable to predatory pricing, so the strict standards set out by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group (1993) did not apply.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruled that predatory bidding is judged by the same standards as predatory pricing, and because plaintiff admitted it was unable to prove the elements required by Brooke Group, the claim was unsuccessful. The judgment comes a short time after the CFI ruled on predatory pricing (see earlier entry in this blog) and holds two lessons for the EU: (1) how to use economics to analyse disputes; (2) how to write judgments.
(1) The use of economics
First, the Court explored whether predatory bidding (the exercise of monopsony power; that is, buyer power) is comparable to predatory pricing. The logic is similar: in a first period the predator engages in a measure that raises rivals’ costs (here by bidding high, increasing the price of the inputs and forcing competitors to pay more); in a second period, once competitors have been driven out of business, the predator uses its monopsony power to force sellers of input to lower the prices. As with predatory pricing, the first period represent’s the predator’s ‘investment’ – he suffers losses of profit and his dominance allows him to survive while competitors go out of business. The second period is when he recovers that investment by getting low prices for the inputs, recovering the losses made in the first. Accordingly, the legal standard for predatory bidding should be the same as that for predatory pricing.
Second, the Court held that aggressive commercial tactics are the very essence of competition, and that there were a myriad of reasons why buying inputs at high prices could be innocent, or even pro-competitive: (1) miscalculation of input needs; (2) a response to increased consumer demand; (3) a more efficient firm might bid up input prices to gain market share in the output market; (4) a firm that adopted an input intensive production process might bid to increase the inputs; (5) a firm might buy a lot of inputs today to hedge against future shortages. ‘There is nothing illicit about these bidding decisions. Indeed, this sort of high bidding is essential to competition and innovation.’
Third, the Court noted that like predatory pricing, a failed attempt of predatory bidding is benign. The monopsonist who buys more goods, will be in a position to sell more to consumers, and provided he does not have monopoly power on the selling side, this means that consumers get more goods at competitive prices.
Two things follow from this analysis: (a) predatory bidding is a high risk strategy that has many efficiency justifications; (b) a failed attempt to achieve the rival’s exclusion does not harm consumers. Therefore, a high standard of proof is necessary or there is a ‘risk of chilling pro-competitive behaviour with too law a liability standard.’
The legal test therefore is the same as for predatory pricing: (1) the predatory bidding results in below cost output sales; (2) there is a dangerous probability that the losses in the first period will be recouped through the exercise of monopsony power.
When will European courts think about aggressive commercial behaviour in this way?
Even those who think that a more lenient standard should apply and that Europe is right to be tougher on predators might take an interest in the lower court’s decision. The 9th Circuit held that three things needed proof: anticompetitive conduct through predatory overbidding, intended specifically to eliminate competition, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power .
On intention, the court used evidence which in my mind is more compelling than that in the Wanadoo case. The court used three types of evidence: (1) Defendant’s anticompetitive conduct itself, (2) the testimony of Defendant’s employees, and (3) Defendant’s business projections regarding sawlog prices. Note that (2) is trial based testimony, not internal memoranda. Note also how items (1) and (3) show that Defendant had calculated what it would take to outs plaintiff. This evidence is much more specific than that which the CFI relied upon.
(2) Judicial Style
This decision is 16 pages of a pdf file. The first paragraph is a concise statement of the key points. The facts are examined in a succinct manner. Quotes from previous cases are brief and to the point. Academic literature is mentioned. The case can easily be read, and understood, while commuting on the tube. It is unfortunate that the style of judgment in the European Courts cannot be as clear and as concise.
Interestingly perhaps, the Court eschews mention of wider debates about the nature of S.2 monopolisation claims, a topical issue in light of the current hearings on single firm conduct. Perhaps the Court thinks it best if the law develops incrementally rather than setting out general standards for anticompetitive behaviour like the no economic sense test, or the as efficient competitor test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
