Injury to competitors is injury to competition: predatory pricing under state law
Article Abstract:
A dispute between a gasoline dealer and a distributor that also owns service stations in the same area raises antitrust questions under Tennessee state law in a case presently on appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The briefs presented by the plaintiff question what type of harm the plaintiff must show to successfully show predatory pricing by the distributor. The central issue in many such antitrust actions is whether showing anticompetitive intent and behavior is sufficient or whether a plaintiff is required to have gone out of business to prove the serious effects of the defendant's actions.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law and Economics Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6048
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Predatory pricing in the cigarette oligopoly: substituting 'theoretical speculation' for jury findings
Article Abstract:
The strategy being employed by plaintiff's counsel Phillip Areeda in Liggett Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., which will be heard by the US Supreme Court in 1993, includes arguing for a predatory pricing standard that almost no antitrust plaintiffs will be able to prove. Areeda is well known as an antitrust defense attorney, and his usual clients would favor a test that requires showing market power and price below average variable cost. In his petition for certiorari, Areeda recommends the Court adopt his standard for predatory pricing.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law and Economics Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6048
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: