Community Publishers, Inc. v. DR Partners
| Decision Date | 25 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | 95-3355 and 95-3358,95-3165,Nos. 95-2976,s. 95-2976 |
| Citation | 139 F.3d 1180 |
| Parties | 1998-1 Trade Cases P 72,093, 26 Media L. Rep. 1569 COMMUNITY PUBLISHERS, INC.; Shearin, doing business as Shearin & Company Realtors, Inc., Plaintiffs--Appellees, v. DR PARTNERS, doing business as Donrey Media Group; Thomson Newspapers, Inc.; Northwest Arkansas Times, Defendants, NAT, L.C., Defendant--Appellant, Little Rock Newspaper, doing business as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., Movant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. NAT, INC., Defendant--Appellant, DR Partners, doing business as Donrey Media Group, Inc., Defendants, Freedom Communications, Inc., Amicus Curiae. COMMUNITY PUBLISHERS, INC.; Shearin, doing business as Shearin & Company Realtors, Inc., Plaintiffs--Appellees, v. DR PARTNERS, doing business as Donrey Media Group, Defendant--Appellant, Thomson Newspapers, Inc.; Northwest Arkansas Times; NAT, L.C., Defendants, Little Rock Newspaper, doing business as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., Movant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. NAT, INC.; DR Partners, doing business as Donrey Media Group, Inc., Defendants, Freedom Communications, Inc., Amicus Curiae. COMMUNITY PUBLISHERS, INC.; Shearin, doing business as Shearin & Company Realtors, Inc., Plaintiffs--Appellees, v. DR PARTNERS, doing business as Donrey Media Group; Thomson Newspapers, Inc., Northwest Arkansas Times, Defendants, NAT, L.C., Defendant--Appellant, Little Rock Newspaper, doing business as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., Movant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NAT, INC., DR Partners, doing business as Donrey Media Group, Inc., Defendants, Freedom Communications, Inc., Amicus Curiae. COMMUNITY PUBLISHERS, INC.; Shearin, doing business as Shearin & Company Realtors, Inc., Plaintiffs--Appellees, v. DR PARTNERS, doing business as Donrey Media Group, Defendant--Appellant, Thomson Newspapers, Inc.; Northwest Arkansas Times; NAT, L.C., Defendants, Little Rock Newspaper, doing business as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., Movant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaint |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Amy Lee Stewart, Little Rock, AR, argued (Jerry C. Jones, Garland J. Garrett, Grand E. Fortson, Kathryn Bennett Perkins, Michael N. Shannon, and W.W. Bassett, Jr., on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant NAT, L.C.
Amy Lee Stewart, Little Rock, AR, argued (James M. Dunn, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant DR Partners.
Mark S. Popofsky, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued (Robert B. Nicholson, Craig W. Conrath, Philip R. Malone, Allee A. Ramadhan, Alexander Y. Thomas, and Brigid L. Thomas, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee U.S.
Philip S. Anderson, Little Rock, AR, argued (Peter G. Kumpe, John E. Tull, III, Leon Holmes and Jeanne L. Seewald, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee Community Publishers.
Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
NAT, L.C. (NAT) and DR Partners d/b/a Donrey Media Group (Donrey) appeal from the judgment and amended judgment of the District Court. 1 The case concerns the lawfulness of a newspaper acquisition. After a bench trial, the court (1) held that NAT's acquisition of the Northwest Arkansas Times (the Times) violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, (2) ordered NAT and Thomson Newspapers, Inc. (Thomson), from which NAT had purchased the Times, to rescind the transaction, and (3) awarded attorney fees and costs to Community Publishers, Inc. (CPI) and Shearin Inc. d/b/a Shearin & Company Realtors (Shearin), the private plaintiffs who challenged the acquisition. 2 Thomson's motion to stay the rescission order pending the disposition of these appeals having been denied, rescission has taken place and Thomson has sold the Times to a third party. 3
Plaintiffs' theory of the case, which the findings and conclusions of the District Court fully support, is that the acquisition of the Times by NAT likely would have anticompetitive effects in the local daily newspaper business, because the acquisition would result in NAT and Donrey, both under the common control of Jack Stephens and his family, owning both the Times and the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas (the Morning News), the two leading local daily newspapers, together having a dominant market share, in the relevant geographic market. Seeking reversal and dismissal of the complaint, NAT and Donrey challenge virtually all the key aspects of the District Court's findings and conclusions. We shall address seriatim the issues raised. The facts of the case are described in detail in the District Court's lengthy opinion. We shall discuss them only to the extent appropriate to our resolution of the issues.
Appellants argue the District Court erred in determining that the private plaintiffs, CPI and Shearin, suffered antitrust injury. 4 We disagree.
CPI, which asserted standing as a competitor of the Times, was required to show injury or "loss of profits from practices forbidden by the antitrust laws." Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 116, 107 S.Ct. 484, 492, 93 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986). Though "Cargill has imposed significant barriers to competitor attempts to enjoin merger transactions," Phototron Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 842 F.2d 95, 102 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1023, 108 S.Ct. 1996, 100 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988), here the District Court found that CPI's profits were threatened in various ways by the anticompetitive aspects of the challenged acquisition of the Times. See 892 F.Supp. at 1166-67. Having reviewed the record, we cannot say the District Court's findings on this point are clearly erroneous. We therefore must agree with the District Court that "this is one of those rare cases [in which] a competitor plaintiff has successfully proved a threat of antitrust injury." Id.
As to Shearin, the District Court found a threat of antitrust injury based upon Shearin's status as a purchaser of advertising in the Morning News. Shearin alleged that a combination of the Times and the Morning News would raise advertising rates as a result of the two newspapers' dominant market position. The threat of higher prices resulting from dominant market power being a primary concern of Section 7, the District Court correctly determined that Shearin had shown antitrust injury.
NAT and Donrey contend the District Court erred in aggregating their interests for the purpose of determining whether the acquisition violated Section 7. Appellants argue that because the Stephens family interests that own NAT are somewhat different from the array of Stephens family interests that own Donrey, and no single family member or set of family members possesses more than a minority interest in either NAT or Donrey, there is no reason to believe that NAT and Donrey would act in concert to dominate the newspaper business in northwest Arkansas. The District Court determined, however, based on a careful consideration of the evidence, that the Stephens family could be expected to act in a coordinated way to maximize the wealth of the family as a whole. Specifically, the court found "that the various members of the Stephens family do not pursue separate interests or compete against each other in any way." Id. at 1170-71. The court's findings on this point are not clearly erroneous. Thus, it was proper for the District Court to aggregate the interests of NAT and Donrey for purposes of Section 7 analysis. Cf. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 771, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 2741-42, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984) ().
Appellants also contend the District Court erred in defining the relevant geographic market for purposes of Section 7. The court defined the relevant geographic market as northwest Arkansas, encompassing Washington and Benton Counties. The court found that the term "Northwest Arkansas" has come to stand for "an increasingly integrated economic, social and political unit which just happens to be located in the northwest corner of the state." 892 F.Supp. at 1157. In addition, the court found that the Times and the Morning News strongly compete against each other for readers and advertisers in Washington County, and that the Benton County Daily Record (the Daily Record), published by CPI, and the Morning News compete with one another in Benton County. We have reviewed the record and conclude we cannot say any of these findings are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the District Court's definition of the relevant geographic market must stand.
Appellants argue the District Court erred in defining the product market for purposes of Section 7. The court found that the relevant product market for antitrust purposes is the local daily newspaper market. This is, as the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berlyn, Inc. v. The Gazette Newspapers, Inc.
...products." M & M Medical Supplies & Service v. Pleasant Valley Hosp., 981 F.2d 160, 170 (4th Cir.1993). In Community Publishers, Inc. v. DR Partners, 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir.1998), the appellate court affirmed the district court's opinion (reached after hearing expert testimony) that the rel......
-
Lerma v. Univision Communications, Inc.
...practices that reduce competition in the market. Lerma is also like Shearin Inc., a plaintiff in Community Publishers, Inc. v. DR Partners, 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir.1998). This recent case concerned the acquisition of one local daily newspaper by the owner of the other leading local daily new......
-
Bakare v. Pinnacle Health Hospitals, Inc.
...occurred (i.e., not potential harm). See Morales-Villalobos v. Garcia-Llorens, 316 F.3d 51 (1st Cir.2003); Cmty. Publishers, Inc. v. DR Partners, 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir.1998); Doctor's Hospital of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. Alliance, Inc., 123 F.3d 301 (5th 42. Notably, Dr. Kellis's report......
-
Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co.
...Irmat correctly notes that the determination of relevant product market is fact-intensive. Community Publishers, Inc. v. DR Partners, 139 F.3d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir. 1998) but this is not " ‘a per se prohibition against dismissal of antitrust claims for failure to plead a relevant market unde......
-
Market Definition
...potential to compete in regional market and should be included in market definition), aff’d sub nom. Cmty. Publishers v. DR Partners, 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1998); FTC v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., No. 86-900, 1986 WL 952, at *6 (D.D.C. 1986) (attempted price increase by copolymer produce......
-
Table of cases
...2010), 1, 61, 92 Cmty. Publishers v. Donrey Corp., 892 F. Supp. 1146 (W.D. Ark. 1995), aff’d sub nom. Cmty. Publishers v. DR Partners, 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1998), 67, 88 Coastal Fuels v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., 79 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 1996) In re Coca-Cola Bottling, 118 F.T.C. 452 (1994......
-
Judicial Relief and Remedies
...effects, and a rival has every incentive to challenge such procompetitive mergers simply because they are procompetitive.”), aff’d , 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1998); William J. Baumol & Janusz A. Ordover, Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition , 28 J.L. & ECON. 247, 256-67 (1985) (if acquisi......
-
Table of Cases
...Commc’ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982), 287 Community Publ’rs v. Donrey Corp., 892 F. Supp. 1146 (W.D. Ark. 1995), aff’d , 139 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1998), 487, 491, 536 Connecticut v. Wyco New Haven, 1990 WL 78540 (D. Conn. 1990), 15 Conoco Inc., 135 F.T.C. 105 (2003), 291 Conso......