Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Industries, Inc., s. 80-2098
| Decision Date | 18 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | 80-2143,Nos. 80-2098,82-1176 and 82-1177,s. 80-2098 |
| Citation | 732 F.2d 779 |
| Parties | 1984-1 Trade Cases 65,946 BLACK GOLD, LTD., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. ROCKWOOL INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John W. Madden, III and Kenneth R. Bennington of Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Madden, and Thomas D. Smart, Jr. of Smart, DeFurio, Brooks & Eklund, Denver, Colo., for Black Gold, Ltd.
Jeffrey L. Smith of Cohen, Brame & Smith, Denver, Colo.; John G. Wigmore and Richard C. Neal of Lawler, Felix & Hall, Los Angeles, Cal., for Rockwool Industries, Inc.
Before DOYLE, McKAY and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
Rockwool has petitioned the panel for rehearing in Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Industries, Inc., 729 F.2d 676 (10th Cir.1984), urging us to reconsider our determination that the record contains sufficient evidence of a tying combination or conspiracy to withstand a motion for directed verdict. Rockwool contends that the Supreme Court case of Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984), decided after our opinion, compels a contrary result. We disagree and affirm our panel decision with the following addendum.
In Monsanto the Court considered what evidence is sufficient to create a jury issue on whether a manufacturer and some of its distributors were parties to an agreement or conspiracy prohibited by the antitrust laws. Under Monsanto, evidence must be produced reasonably tending "to prove that the manufacturer and others 'had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.' " --- U.S. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1471 (quoting Edward J. Sweeney & Sons v. Texaco, Inc., 637 F.2d 105, 111 (3d Cir.1980)). Among other things, the Court noted that a threat to cut off a nonacquiescing distributor during a time when the product is in short supply is probative evidence of concerted action because it permits a jury to conclude that the manufacturer "sought this agreement at a time when it was able to use supply as a lever to force compliance." Id. at n. 10.
In view of this specific example, we do not construe Monsanto as a retreat from those cases holding that a combination occurs between a seller and buyers "whose acquiescence in [the seller's] firmly enforced restraints was induced by 'the communicated danger of termination.' "...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ASS'N OF INDEPENDENT TV STATIONS v. College Football Ass'n
...U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 77, 88 L.Ed.2d 63 (1985); Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Industries, Inc., 729 F.2d 676, 685-896, on rehearing, 732 F.2d 779 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 178, 83 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984). ABC, CFA, and the Big Eight do not dispute the amounts or manner of p......
-
Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
...Ltd. v. Rockwool Indus., 729 F.2d 676, 684-85 (10th Cir.1984) (footnote omitted and underlined emphasis added) opinion supplemented by 732 F.2d 779 (1984). The same showing regarding the standard for a Section 3 Clayton Act violation, underlined above, will also generally give rise to a cla......
-
Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.
...and other parties had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective. Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Industries, Inc., 732 F.2d 779 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 178, 83 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984), citing Monsanto, 465 U.S. at 764, 104 S.Ct......
-
City of Chanute, Kan. v. Williams Natural Gas Co.
...in [the seller's] firmly enforced restraints was induced by "the communicated danger of termination." ' " Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Indus., Inc., 732 F.2d 779, 780 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854, 105 S.Ct. 178, 83 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984); see also Smith Mach. Co., 878 F.2d at 1294-95......
-
Robinson-Patman Act
...sufficient to preclude summary judgement for the defendant on antitrust injury). 582. 729 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1984), aff’d on rehearing , 732 F.2d 779 (10th Cir. 1984). 583. Id. at 678-79. 584. Id. at 679. 585. Id. 586. Id. at 681. 587. Id. at 681-82. 588. See Metrix Warehouse, 828 F.2d at ......
-
Table of Cases
...U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87022 (N.D. Ala. 2016), 343, 1022 Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Indus., 729 F.2d 676 (10th Cir.), opinion supplemented, 732 F.2d 779 (10th Cir. 1984), 165, 531, 533, 550, 600 Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974), 1091 Blackstone Capital Partners II Merch. Banking Fund; Un......
-
Restraints of Trade
...Gold to induce adherence by other customers to a tying arrangement . . . Rockwool would be liable under Section 1 . . . .”), amended, 732 F.2d 779 (10th Cir. 1984). As discussed below, not all tying arrangements are deemed illegal per se. See part D.2.a(3) of this chapter. 166 ANTITRUST LAW......