Court revives antitrust case against grocers
The case against two wholesalersC&S Wholesale Grocers Inc. and SuperValu Inc.will see its day in court.
February 14, 2013 at 04:04 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The case against two wholesalers—C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc. and SuperValu Inc.—will see its day in court.
Yesterday, the 8th Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling dismissing the case, which five grocers brought against the two companies claiming they colluded to raise prices on groceries. The grocers say that a 2003 agreement between C&S and SuperValu to exchange assets in the Midwest and New England and not compete with each other for customers was a violation of antitrust laws. They claim the deal allowed the two wholesalers to overcharge retail customers in the Midwest and New England.
Each of the retailers had arbitration agreements with one or the other wholesaler. To get around having to arbitrate the case, the retailers brought suit against the wholesaler with which they did not have an arbitration agreement. The question over these agreements played a role in the previous court's decision to dismiss.
According to Thomson Reuters, SuperValu said it is currently reviewing its options. C&S had not responded to Thomson Reuters request for comment.
Read more InsideCounsel stories about antitrust suits:
Dairy co-op will pay $158.6 million in antitrust settlement
Private antitrust suits up in 2012
Google/FTC deal will affect future technology patent disputes
DOJ antitrust division collects record-breaking fines in 2012
Regulators sue NY tour buses for alleged monopoly
Retailers appeal $7.2 billion Visa/Mastercard settlement
Most-favored-nation clauses attract antitrust scrutiny
The case against two wholesalers—C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc. and
Yesterday, the 8th Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling dismissing the case, which five grocers brought against the two companies claiming they colluded to raise prices on groceries. The grocers say that a 2003 agreement between C&S and SuperValu to exchange assets in the Midwest and New England and not compete with each other for customers was a violation of antitrust laws. They claim the deal allowed the two wholesalers to overcharge retail customers in the Midwest and New England.
Each of the retailers had arbitration agreements with one or the other wholesaler. To get around having to arbitrate the case, the retailers brought suit against the wholesaler with which they did not have an arbitration agreement. The question over these agreements played a role in the previous court's decision to dismiss.
According to Thomson Reuters, SuperValu said it is currently reviewing its options. C&S had not responded to Thomson Reuters request for comment.
Read more InsideCounsel stories about antitrust suits:
Dairy co-op will pay $158.6 million in antitrust settlement
Private antitrust suits up in 2012
DOJ antitrust division collects record-breaking fines in 2012
Regulators sue NY tour buses for alleged monopoly
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
© 2025 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 All
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute read
In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
