209193.pdf

|
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 26 views
of 30

Please download to get full document.

View again

Description
No. 04-905 In the Supreme Court of the United States VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER v. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER PAUL D. CLEMENT Acting Soli
Share
Tags
Transcript
  No. 04-905  In the Supreme Court of the United States V OLVO T RUCKS N ORTH A MERICA , I NC ., PETITIONER v. R EEDER -S IMCO GMC, I NC . ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER W ILLIAM B LUMENTHAL General CounselFederal Trade CommissionWashington, D.C. 20580 P AUL D. C LEMENT  Acting Solicitor GeneralCounsel of Record R. H EWITT P ATE  Assistant Attorney General T HOMAS G. H UNGAR Deputy Solicitor General M AKAN D ELRAHIM Deputy Assistant AttorneyGeneral  J ONATHAN L. M ARCUS  Assistant to the Solicitor General C ATHERINE G. O’S ULLIVAN D AVID S EIDMAN  AttorneysDepartment of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530-0001(202) 514–2217   (I) QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a manufacturer that offers different wholesaleprices to its dealers may be held liable for unlawful price dis-crimination under Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, asamended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(a), inthe absence of a showing that it discriminated between deal-ers competing to resell its product to the same retail cus-tomer.  (1)  In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-905V OLVO T RUCKS N ORTH A MERICA , I NC ., PETITIONER v. R EEDER -S IMCO GMC, I NC . ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERINTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC) enforce the federal antitrust laws. The FTChas developed much of the jurisprudence under the Robin-son-Patman Act through administrative enforcement pro-ceedings. This case presents significant questions concern-ing the reach of that Act’s prohibition of price discrimination.Because those questions implicate the pro-competition poli-cies that underlie the antitrust laws generally and that in-form the proper interpretation of the Robinson-Patman Actin particular, the government has a substantial interest intheir correct resolution. STATEMENT Respondent Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. (Reeder) was anauthorized dealer in heavy trucks manufactured by peti-tioner Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. (Volvo). Reeder  2sued Volvo, claiming that Volvo violated Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by theRobinson-Patman Anti-Discrimination Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(a)(Robinson-Patman Act or the Act), by discriminating in theprices it charged its dealers for heavy trucks. The Robinson-Patman Act provides, in relevant part:It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in com-merce * * * to discriminate in price between differentpurchasers of commodities of like grade and quality,* * * where the effect of such discrimination may besubstantially to lessen competition or tend to create amonopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy,or prevent competition with any person who eithergrants or knowingly receives the benefit of suchdiscrimination, or with customers of either of them.15 U.S.C. 13(a). A jury found Volvo liable and awardeddamages. The district court denied Volvo’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the court of appeals af-firmed. Pet. App. 1a-27a.1.Volvo manufactures heavy trucks. Reeder, whosedealership is located in Fort Smith, Arkansas, became anauthorized Volvo heavy-truck dealer in 1995, pursuant to afive-year franchise agreement with automatic one-year ex-tensions if Reeder met sales objectives established by Volvo.Pet. App. 2a. Reeder generally sold Volvo’s trucks througha competitive bidding process. Id.  at 2a-3a. That processworks as follows: a potential heavy-truck buyer (customer)seeks bids from several dealers. The customer’s choice of dealers from which to seek bids is influenced “by such fac-tors as an existing relationship, geography, reputation, andcold calling or other marketing strategies initiated by indi-vidual dealers.” Id.  at 28a-29a (Hansen, J., concurring inpart and dissenting in part). Once a Volvo dealer such asReeder receives the customer’s specifications, it turns to
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x