Falls City Industries v. Vanco Beverage

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Morton Salt Presumption Of Injury Under Robinson-Patman Act

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPThomas D. NevinsJanuary 19, 2016

    This can be shown in either of two alternative ways: “[1] showing substantial discounts to a competitor over a significant period of time, known as the Morton Salt inference, or [2] proof of lost sales to favored purchasers.” Cash & Henderson, 799 F.3d at 210, citing Falls City Indus., Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., 460 U.S. 428, 435 (1983); also citing FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 50-51 (1948) (violation inferred from lengthy, substantial price discrimination between competitors). The Morton Salt inference may still be alive and well.

  2. Second Circuit tells pharmacies the antitrust claims they cooked up need more than a little Morton Salt

    Butler Snow LLPBrian KimballDecember 19, 2015

    [4] 334 U.S. 37 (1948).[5] 460 U.S. 428 (1983).

  3. FIFTH CIRCUIT REJECTS ATTEMPT TO NARROW MEETING COMPETITION DEFENSE TO PRICE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPSeptember 7, 2006

    The Fifth Circuit was similarly unconvinced by Water Craft’s contention that Mercury’s discount to Travis did not meet competition because Mercury’s price to Travis was not as low as the price offered by Mercury’s competitor. In support of this argument, Water Craft cited Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage Inc., 460 U.S. 428 (1983), in which the Supreme Court explained that "a seller’s response must be defensive, in the sense that the lower price must be calculated and offered in good faith to ‘meet not beat’ the competitor’s low price." According to Water Craft, this statement from the Supreme Court indicates that the discriminatory price must meet and not exceed the competitor’s low price.