Third Circuit Denies Rehearing in DuPont Price-Fixing Case
The Third Circuit on Wednesday denied Valspar Corp.'s request for an en banc rehearing of a decision to toss a $176 million antitrust lawsuit accusing DuPont of conspiring to fix the price of a paint ingredient.
December 07, 2017 at 06:27 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
DuPont headquarters at Chestnut Run Plaza. Photo: Littleinfo via Wikimedia Commons
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Wednesday denied Valspar Corp.'s request for an en banc rehearing of a decision to toss a $176 million antitrust lawsuit accusing DuPont of conspiring to fix the price of a paint ingredient.
Judge Thomas Hardiman said in a one-page order that the court declined to revisit a split decision from October affirming a lower court's ruling that Valspar failed to prove the Wilmington-based chemical giant engaged in a scheme with competitors to fix the price of titanium dioxide.
Attorneys for Valspar had petitioned for a rehearing before the whole court, saying the opinion ”eviscerates” antitrust protections by establishing an “unprecedented summary judgment standard for plaintiffs trying to prove a price-fixing conspiracy” in the appeals court.
In its filing, Valspar keyed into the Oct. 2 dissent of Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, who criticized the majority's ruling that plaintiffs in oligopoly cases must show the alleged conspiracy is “more likely than not” to have occurred. Stengel, the chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was sitting by designation on the three-member panel.
Valspar, a Minnesota-based paint manufacturer, filed suit in Delaware federal court in 2013.
In its complaint, Valspar said DuPont used secret communications with three rivals to control the price of titanium dioxide, causing Valspar to overpay for the chemical by $176 million. The company pointed to 31 parallel price-increase announcements between 2002 and 2013, claiming the defendants used the public statements to quietly gauge each other's willingness to raise prices.
But the highly concentrated nature of the U.S. titanium dioxide market figured prominently in Judge Richard G. Andrews' February 2016 decision to grant summary judgment to DuPont. In that type of market, known as an oligopoly, legal and illegal behavior can be hard to distinguish, and Valspar could not show the alleged conspirators were not operating independently, Andrews said.
Andrews noted that Valspar had to show the existence of “plus factors,” particularly evidence implying an “actual, manifest agreement” to defeat DuPont's motion.
“These parallel price increases, or 'signals,' would perhaps describe how a conspiracy practically functioned, but only if there were some indication of an agreement to begin with, rather than conduct that could just as well be explained by independent action. In short, nothing about these announcements tends to exclude the possibility of independent action.”
Hardiman and fellow Third Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause affirmed Andrews' ruling on the same basis, sparking a petition by Valspar and amicus the American Antitrust Institute that the entire court reconsider the “virtually impossible” summary judgment standard it set.
But Hardiman said Wednesday there was no majority consensus that the case should be reheard.
Attorneys for both sides were not available to comment Thursday.
Valspar was represented by James M. Lockhart, James P. McCarthy and Kathryn E. Wendt of Lindquist & Vennum and Frederick L. Cottrell III, Jason J. Rawnsley and Chad M. Shandler of Richards, Layton & Finger.
DuPont was represented by Shari R. Lahlou, Randa Adra, Clifton S. Elgarten and Benjamin C. Wastler of Crowell & Moring and Kathleen F. McDonough and John A. Sensing of Potter Anderson & Corroon.
The case is captioned Valspar v. DuPont.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All3rd Circuit Judges Zero In on Constitutional Challenges to Medicare Drug Pricing Program
Justices: Can Delaware Courts Put a Price Tag on Corporate Move to Nevada?
4 minute readSupreme Court Asked If Ellison's Plans Affected Oracle's NetSuite Acquisition
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250