Beyond Truth, and Toward Repose: Price Increases Following “Merger to Monopoly” Do Not Rekindle Statute of Limitations

by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Contact

Z Technologies Corp. v. Lubrizol Corp., No. 2:12-cv-12206 (6th Cir., May 23, 2014).

In February, 2007, Lubrizol Corporation made a “merger to monopoly” acquisition of the assets of a competitor.  The acquisition established a monopoly in the market for petroleum wax-based oxidates.  After the acquisition, Lubrizol increased prices for oxidates in March, July and November, 2007, and again in May, July and September of 2008.  In the aggregate, Lubrizol increased its oxidate prices approximately 70% following the acquisition.

Following the price increases, in February 2009, the Federal Trade Commission filed an action challenging the merger under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  In April 2009, Lubrizol entered into a consent agreement and promised to divest the assets acquired to a third company.

In May 2012, Z Technologies (“Z”) filed an action under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and Michigan antitrust laws for damages allegedly inflicted by Lubrizol’s price increases.  However, Z’s action was filed approximately five years and three months after the acquisition.  Z claimed that it had suffered antitrust injury as a result of purchases of petroleum wax-based oxidates at monopoly prices.

In response to Lubrizol’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, Z contended that the applicable statute of limitations had been extended because the price increases were “continuing violations”.  The district court rejected the argument, holding that the price increases were not “new and independent” injuries, and thus were barred by the four-year statute of limitations of Section 4(B) of the Clayton Act.

A good argument can be made that under traditional industrial organization economics, the price increases were at monopoly prices, were allocatively inefficient, and transferred consumer rents to producers.  This assumes, however, that the price increases were not vitiated by the remedial actions which ensued from the entry of the Federal Trade Commission’s consent decree with Lubrizol.  In the seminal case of Reiter v. Sontone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979), the Supreme Court held that consumers who pay more for goods acquired for personal use are injured in their “business or property” within the meaning of Section 4 of the Clayton Act, where the price paid was a monopoly price.  In the instant case, both parties agreed that the acquisition by Lubrizol was a “merger to monopoly” acquisition, and that it exercised monopoly power prior to the completion of the remedial process which followed from the sale of the acquired company pursuant to the FTC consent order.

However, it may be exceedingly difficult under any number of scenarios to determine whether the acquisition of a monopoly through a “merger to monopoly” would result in injury to “business or property” of a purchaser, absent a showing that the price paid was the result of the exercise of monopoly power.  Here, the price increases paid by Z were more than four years after the acquisition, and three years after the entry of the Federal Trade Commission consent order.  What result?  Is the “continuing violation” exception available to extend the running of the statute?  The Sixth Circuit answered the question in the negative, and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal.

As to the “continuing violations doctrine”, the court held that in order for the statute of limitations to be restarted, it would be necessary to show the commission of a “new” overt act that caused the plaintiff damage.  Here, there could be no such showing.  The court held that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply in a “merger-monopolization” context, as it would in a conspiracy or monopoly maintenance context.  What is the rationale, and what is the difference?  Borrowing from the exhaustive treatment of the subject in Section 320 of Areeda & Hovenkamp “Antitrust Law”, price increases following a merger to monopoly scenario would be the order of the day and would be expected.  The “overt act” of noticeability would be the merger itself, and price increases soon after the acquisition would trigger the statute, while continuing price increases, and particularly price increase after the expiration of the four year statute of limitations period, would not.  As pointed out by Messrs. Areeda and Hovenkamp, there is a strong public policy in place that favors “repose”, which will not reward those who “sleep on their rights”.  Here, Z was well aware for a period of five years of the Lubrizol acquisition, and the entry of the consent decree.  However, it did not act until the four year statute had taken its course.  Here, repose required the dismissal of Z’s action.  The subsequent price increases were real, but did not constitute “new” or continuing injury.  This is what statutes of limitations do.  They incentivize the bringing of action in a reasonably timely fashion to allow the market and its participants to move on.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Contact
more
less

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!