The US Northern District Court of Texas holds that the supplier’s policy of linking the wholesale price to the distributor’s retail price does not amount to illegal resale price maintenance as long as the distributor is free to set its retail price (Lubbock Beverage / Miller Brewing)

Introduction The Lubbock Beverage Co. v. Miller Brewing Co. [1]case involves allegations by a distributor that the supplier's practice of linking the wholesale price to the distributor's retail price amounted to illegal resale price maintenance (“RPM”) and vertical price fixing. The federal district court in the Northern District of Texas, applying the rule of reason, held that the supplier's unilateral increase of its wholesale price in direct proportion to any increase in the distributor's retail price did not amount to violation of either Section 1 of the Sharman Act or the relevant state antitrust laws. Facts In 1999, Miller Brewing Company (the “supplier”) and Lubbock Beverage Company (the “distributor”) entered into a distributorship agreement (the “Agreement”), appointing the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • United First Partners (New York)

Quotation

Anna M. Pavlik, The US Northern District Court of Texas holds that the supplier’s policy of linking the wholesale price to the distributor’s retail price does not amount to illegal resale price maintenance as long as the distributor is free to set its retail price (Lubbock Beverage / Miller Brewing), 4 June 2002, e-Competitions Bulletin June 2002, Art. N° 53269

Visites 229

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues