Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Civ. A. No. 74-2451
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) |
| Writing for the Court | Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Glenview, Ill., for Zenith Radio Corp., plaintiff |
| Citation | 513 F. Supp. 1100 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-2451,74-3247. MDL 189. |
| Parties | ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. Defendants. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. Defendants. In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. |
513 F. Supp. 1100
ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. Defendants.
NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. Defendants.
In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
Civ. A. Nos. 74-2451, 74-3247. MDL 189.
United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
March 27, 1981.
As Amended May 13, 1981.
Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Glenview, Ill., for Zenith Radio Corp., plaintiff.
Mudge Rose Guthrie & Alexander by Donald J. Zoeller, John P. Hederman, Thomas P. Lynch, Howard C. Crystal, Robert A. Jaffe, Shelly B. O'Neill, Mark K. Neville, Jr., New York City, Drinker, Biddle & Reath by Patrick T. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for Tokyo Shibaura Elec. Co., Ltd. and Toshiba America, Inc., defendants; defense coordinating counsel.
Duane, Morris & Heckscher by Henry T. Reath, Terry R. Broderick, Philadelphia, Pa., Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell by John T. Dolan, Arnold B. Calmann, Newark, N.J., Seki, Jarvis & Lynch by Hoken S. Seki, Richard O. Briggs, Chicago, Ill., for Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. and Mitsubishi Elec. Sales America, Inc.
Reid & Priest by Charles F. Schirmeister, Robert J. Lynch, New York City, L. Peter Farkas, Washington, D.C., for Mitsubishi Corp. and Mitsubishi Intern. Corp., defendants.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges by Ira M. Millstein, A. Paul Victor, Joel B. Harris, Kevin P. Hughes, Robert K. Hood, H. Adam Prussin,
Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz by Carl W. Schwarz, Michael E. Friedlander, William H. Barrett, Stephen P. Murphy, William B. T. Mock, Jr.; Tanaka, Walders & Ritger by H. William Tanaka, Lawrence R. Walders, B. Jenkins Middleton, Washington, D.C., Hunt Kerr Bloom & Hitchner, by Charles J. Bloom, Philadelphia, Pa., for Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Sales Corp. of America, and Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha, defendants.
Wender, Murase & White by Peter J. Gartland, Gene Yukio Matsuo, Peter A. Dankin, Lance Gotthoffer, New York City, for Sharp Corp. and Sharp Electronics Corp., defendants.
Whitman & Ransom by Patrick H. Sullivan, Dugald C. Brown, James S. Morris, Kevin R. Keating, Michael S. Press, New York City, Hunt Kerr Bloom & Hitchner by Charles J. Bloom, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sanyo Elec., Inc., Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., Sanyo Mfg. Corp. and Sanyo Elec. Trading Co., Ltd., defendants.
Arnstein, Gluck, Weitzenfeld & Minow by Louis A. Lehr, Jr., Stanley M. Lipnick, John L. Ropiequet, Chicago, Ill., for Sears, Roebuck & Co., defendant.
Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Lewis & Cohen by Asa D. Sokolow, Renee J. Roberts, Marc Rowin, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler by Joshua F. Greenberg, Randolph S. Sherman, Daniel D. Chazin, New York City, Wolf, Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen by Franklin Poul, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sony Corp. and Sony Corp. of America, defendants.
Kirkland & Ellis by Thomas P. Coffey, E. Houston Harsha, Karl F. Nygren, Chicago, Ill., for Motorola, Inc., defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Summary Judgment Motions Related to Plaintiffs' Sherman Act
Wilson Tariff Act, Clayton Act and Robinson-Patman Act
Claims) Pretrial Order No. 307
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1117
II. THE ANATOMY OF PLAINTIFFS' CONSPIRACY CLAIMS 1124
III. THE FPS, FINAL STAGE CASE MANAGEMENT, AND THE SUMMARY 1130
JUDGMENT RECORD
IV. SUMMARY OF PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY RULINGS 1135
V. STANDARDS GOVERNING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1139
VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES AFFECTING PLAINTIFFS' SHERMAN ACT 1144
§ 1 AND WILSON TARIFF ACT CONSPIRACY CASE
A. Sherman Act § 1 1144
1. Introduction and Basic Principles 1144
2. Price Agreements 1146
a. The "Price Necessary to Get the Sale" 1147
b. Agreement to Increase Market Share 1147
c. Agreement to Fix Minimum Prices 1147
d. Agreement to Price Predatorily 1148
e. Agreement to Fix Low or Depressed Prices 1148
f. Agreement to Fix Minimum Prices and a Second Agree- 1148
ment to Violate the First
g. Agreement to Deceive Government Authorities With Re- 1148
spect to Price
513 F. Supp. 11153. Market Allocation 1148 4. Membership in Trade Associations and Attendance at Meetings 1149 5. Exchange of Information Concerning Prices, Production and 1149 Inventory Figures, and Joint Forecasting 6. Product Standardization and Technical Research Exchange 1153 7. Secret Rebates 1154 8. Joint Activities in Promoting Public and Governmental Rela- 1155 tions and Joint Legal Action in Response to Common Problems B. Statutory Antitrust Standing Under § 4 and § 16 of the Clayton 1157 Act C. The Wilson Tariff Act 1162 D. The Law of Conspiracy in an Antitrust Context 1165 1. In General 1165 2. Fragmentation of the Plaintiffs' Conspiracy Allegations 1166 3. The "Slight Evidence" Rule 1169 4. The Requisites of Circumstantial Proof of Conspiracy by Infer- 1170 ence from Consciously Parallel Business Behavior (a) Introduction 1170 (b) General Principles Concerning Inferences from Circumstan- 1170 tial Evidence on Summary Judgment Motions (c) Inferring Conspiracy from Parallel Conduct 1172 5. Vicarious Liability of Coconspirators: The Pinkerton Doctrine 1176 and Robinson-Patman Act and Clayton Act § 7 Violations 6. Requisites for Admissibility of Coconspirator Declarations 1178 VII. PLAINTIFFS' SHERMAN ACT § 1 AND WILSON TARIFF ACT 1180 CONSPIRACY CASE AS TO TELEVISION RECEIVERS—EVIDENTIARY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LEGAL SUFFICIENCY A. Introduction 1180 B. The Technological Development of Consumer Electronic Products 1182 and the Industrial Organization of Japanese Electronics Firms on the Foundation of Borrowed Technology C. The Closed Japanese Market 1183 D. Plaintiffs' Expert Reports 1186 E. Plaintiffs' Allegations About the Combined Economic Power of the 1186 Defendants and their Cartel F. The Manufacturers' Agreements and the JMEA Rules; Operation 1187 of the Minimum Price Agreements and the "Five Company Rule" 1. General Background; Operation of the Minimum Price Provisions 1187 2. Operation and Significance of the "Five Company Rule" 1189 3. The Agreements as Evidence of Conspiracy 1190 4. The Role of MITI 1191 G. Activities of Certain Groups and Associations in Japan 1195 1. Introduction; General Background 1195 2. The Sub Rosa "Conspiratorial" Meetings of Executives Re- 1196 vealed by the Six Company Case (a) Introduction; General Background 1196 (b) Evidence of the Home Market Aspect of the "Unitary" 1202 Conspiracy; the Plaintiffs' "War-chesting" Claims (c) Evidence of the Export Aspect of the "Unitary" Conspiracy 1209 (d) The Six Company Case—Conclusion 1213 3. The EIAJ 1215
...513 F. Supp. 11164. The JMEA and the Television Export Council 1221 5. The Market Stabilization Council, The Nine Essential Points of 1223 Implementation, and the Four Associations Conference H. The "Connection" Documents 1226 I. The "Intent" Documents 1230 J. Plaintiffs' Allegations of Below Cost Sales 1235 K. Evidence of International Price Discrimination Between the United 1235 States and Japanese Markets L. Plaintiffs' Evidence of the Operation of the "Predatory Export 1241 Rebate System for Collusive Concealment of Dumping" 1. Elements of the Rebate Scheme 1241 2. Alleged Collusion in the Export Rebate System 1245 M. Plaintiffs' Evidence Concerning the Depletion and Destruction of 1251 the United States CEP Industry N. Plaintiffs' Claims Concerning Defendants' Acquisitions of U.S. 1253 Manufacturers and Their Establishment of Manufacturing Facilities in the United States 1. Introduction 1253 2. The Quasar Acquisition 1254 3. The Warwick Acquisition 1256 4. The Sanyo-Fisher Acquisition 1258 5. The Philips-Magnavox Acquisition 1258 6. Plaintiffs' Claims About Establishment of United States Manu- 1259 facturing Facilities by the Japanese Defendants O. Plaintiffs' Evidence Concerning "Defendants' Systematic Price Dis- 1259 crimination in the U.S." P. Plaintiffs' Contentions Based Upon the "Undisputed Facts and 1260 Legal Propositions" Identified by Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Course of Summary Judgment Argument on August 28, 1980 Q. Evidence of the Participation of Individual Defendants in the Con- 1265 spiracy 1. Introduction 1265 2. The Matsushita Defendants 1266 3. The Toshiba Defendants 1271 4. The Hitachi Defendants 1274 5. The Sanyo Defendants 1275 6. The Sharp Defendants 1278 7. Melco & Melco Sales, Inc. (MSI) 1279 8. Sony 1281 9. MC and MIC 1284 10. Sears 1289 11. Motorola 1293 12. The Sales Subsidiaries 1296 R. Preliminary Determination of Sufficiency of Conspiracy Evidence 1298 under F.R.E. 104(a) S. Summary of Conclusions as to Plaintiffs' Sherman § 1 and Wilson 1299 Tariff Act Case as to Television Receivers VIII. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO NON-TELEVISION 1311 PRODUCTS A. Radios 1311 B. Tape and Stereo Products 1314 C.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc., Civ. A. No. 77-2114-0.
...cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 86, 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982); Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd, 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1172-76 (E.D.Pa.1981); see also Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke Liquors, Ltd., 416 F.2d 71, 84-85 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denie......
-
Premier Comp Solutions LLC v. UPMC, 2:15cv703
...In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig. , 801 F.3d at 396-397. See also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1140 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ("It is now settled that summary judgment is appropriate in those antitrust cases where plaintiffs, after having engaged ......
-
Biovail Corp. Intern. v. Aktiengesellschaft, No. Civ.A. 98-1434(MTB).
...[this oft-quoted] language to bar a probing analysis of antitrust ... claims." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1167 (E.D.Pa.1981), rev'd sub nom. on other grounds, 723 F.2d 238 (1983). Indeed, where numerous claims of anticompetitive conduct are se......
-
Carpet Group Intern. v. Oriental Rug Import. Ass'n, No. CIV.A. 95-5574(JAG).
...association will support a Sherman Act cause of action." Id. at 1065 (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co., 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1149 (E.D.Pa.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). Thus, "m......
-
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc., Civ. A. No. 77-2114-0.
...cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 86, 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982); Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd, 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1172-76 (E.D.Pa.1981); see also Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke Liquors, Ltd., 416 F.2d 71, 84-85 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denie......
-
Premier Comp Solutions LLC v. UPMC, 2:15cv703
...In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig. , 801 F.3d at 396-397. See also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1140 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ("It is now settled that summary judgment is appropriate in those antitrust cases where plaintiffs, after having engaged ......
-
Biovail Corp. Intern. v. Aktiengesellschaft, No. Civ.A. 98-1434(MTB).
...[this oft-quoted] language to bar a probing analysis of antitrust ... claims." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1167 (E.D.Pa.1981), rev'd sub nom. on other grounds, 723 F.2d 238 (1983). Indeed, where numerous claims of anticompetitive conduct are se......
-
Carpet Group Intern. v. Oriental Rug Import. Ass'n, No. CIV.A. 95-5574(JAG).
...association will support a Sherman Act cause of action." Id. at 1065 (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co., 513 F.Supp. 1100, 1149 (E.D.Pa.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). Thus, "m......
-
Foreign States’ Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Antitrust Cases
...v. Aluminum Co. of America, 518 F. Supp. 270, 275, n. 8 (W.D. Pa. 1981).23. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 513 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981).24. Id. at 1192, n. 121.25. The Japanese statement, the ambassador’s letter, and other related official correspondence was a......