|
![]() |
| About Hodgson Russ | Practice Areas | Attorneys & Other Professionals | News & Seminars | Careers | Offices |
|
Anti-Discrimination in Employment: Retaliation Gets Personal Antitrust Alert: HSR Size of Deal Thresholds Raised Benefits Alert - Deferred Compensation Under 409A: Action Items New law increases strictness and severity of publication requirements for LLEs and LPs Tax Alert: Corporate Inversions—Recent US Tax Developments Tax avoidance transactions and reporting requirements in New York State and Local Tax Client Alert - Municipal Bonds New York Enacts State False Claims Act: Implications Beyond Medicaid New DHS Rules Regarding Employer Handling of Social Security No-Match Lette Supreme Court Changes Rules on Resale Price Maintenance |
Home > News & Seminars > Alerts > Supreme Court Changes Rules on Resale Price Maintenance Supreme Court Changes Rules on Resale Price Maintenance
In late June, 2007, the United States Supreme Court struck down its 96-year old rule that made it per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer or other supplier to fix the minimum resale price of its products. Many of our clients have struggled with how to manage their product distribution strategy and still stay within the rule prohibiting resale price maintenance (RPM). The Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc. should make that tightrope substantially easier to walk. The Leegin case does not make vertical price fixing arrangements per se legal. Indeed, the court noted “[r]esale price maintenance, it is true, does have economic dangers.” The Supreme Court, however, announced that such arrangements will be evaluated under a “Rule of Reason” standard (just as vertical non-price restraints such as exclusive territorial arrangements are currently adjudicated). In other words, the anticompetitive effects on competition from a vertical resale pricing restraint that is challenged by a customer (or other party) will be balanced against the purpose and pro-competitive effects of the arrangement. The court suggested a number of factors relevant to the “Rule of Reason” inquiry that courts in the future will need to consider in dealing with RPM cases. They include: While it is clearly too early to evaluate its lasting effect, we believe that the Supreme Court’s Leegin decision should provide the basis for legal counsel to advise that many vertical price restraints will not present any material risk of antitrust liability. If you wish to discuss this Briefing, please contact us. Robert B. Fleming, Jr. 716.848.1376 rfleming@hodgsonruss.com |
|
|
|