Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Possibly big price discrimination decision

Time will tell how big this is, but a food distributor in Pennsylvania won a Robinson-Patman suit against a supplier for discriminatory pricing and against Sodexho for inducing discriminatory pricing.

Feesers filed its complaint against Michael Foods and Sodexho on March 17, 2004, alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. A three-week bench trial took place in early 2008 before Judge Sylvia Rambo in the federal district court in Harrisburg, which resulted in the April 27, 2009 decision.

At trial, Michael Foods and Sodexho argued that Feesers and Sodexho were not in "actual competition" for purposes of the Robinson-Patman Act because Sodexho provides food management services to its customers, whereas Feesers is a food distributor. The court found, however, that both Feesers and Sodexho procure and distribute food for the same institutional customers and, thus, are in actual competition for the same food dollar.

Although the injunctions issued by the district court are binding only as to Michael Foods and Sodexho, it is now clear that price discrimination by food suppliers against distributors such as Feesers and in favor of large-volume food management companies and GPOs such as Sodexho will not be tolerated by the courts.
This law blog quotes attorneys for the two sides, who disagree (no surprise) as to the importance of the decision:

Kessler [Feeser's attorney] told us Wednesday that the decision could have a major impact on the food distribution industry. In recent years, he explained, food management companies like Sodexo--which provide procurement and management services for cafeterias at schools, hospitals, and prisons--have used their large client base as leverage to extract better pricing deals from suppliers. That's hurt distributors like Feesers. "Sodexho [said to its clients], 'We don't compete with distributors so you can give huge discounts,' " Kessler told us.

Peggy Zwisler of Latham & Watkins, who represented Michael Foods at trial, disputed Kessler's view of Judge Rambo's opinon. She told us it's "very fact specific" and does not have broad implications. She also said that Michael Foods has "strong grounds for appeal" and it intends to do so.
The decision is here.

I am not an attorney, so take my opinions with several grains of salt, but it seems to me that the most significant point in the decision is that no proof of competitive harm is required, that harm can be assumed from the size of the price differential. My understanding is that this interpretation, if upheld, would make such suits easier to win in the future.
“Competitive injury” is established prima facie by proof of “a substantial price discrimination between competing purchasers over time.” In order to establish a prima facie violation of section 2(a), Feesers does not need to prove that Michael Foods’ price discrimination actually harmed competition, i.e., that the discriminatory pricing caused Feesers to lose customers to Sodexho. Rather, Feesers need only prove that (a) it competed with Sodexho to sell food and (b) there was price discrimination over time by Michael Foods. This evidence gives rise to a rebuttable inference of “competitive injury” under § 2(a). The inference, if it is found to exist, would then have to be rebutted by defendants’ proof that the price differential was not the reason that Feesers lost sales or profits.


Sid25 said...

I am a former employee of Sodexo. A big piece to this is that Sodexo makes huge money on rebates from the food. The rebate amounts are kept secret from the clients and this is tantamount to a kickback. I lost my job for speaking out on this practice. If you want more info read this article or contact me at

Anonymous said...

thank you a lot !! Problem fix with Samsung ML-1520 on Win8 64bit.

Several greetings from Germany.

my blog post :: xerox phaser 8560mfp driver

Anonymous said...

this is quite useful, many thanks providing the info. I should say also would choose to give you a hand at the same time.
...please correct the spelling of "jewelry." Misspelled test is a
pitfall for most business minded people.

Also visit my blog post: israeli jewellery designer

Anonymous said...

Is 300 dpi the minimum need for all prints?

my web page -

Anonymous said...

Hey to all,-my Samsung ML 1410 now operates
great (Home windows 8 Pro 64 bit). Thanks a great deal for that terrific Study.

Check out my web site ::

Anonymous said...

Thank you a lot! I have actually saved hrs of time at the workplace!

Also visit my site - Xerox Phaser 8560 Ink

Anonymous said...

I visited many blogs but the audio quality for audio songs
existing at this website is really fabulous.

Also visit my web-site; xerox 8560

Anonymous said...

Gear Ring with Rubber O-Ring- lovelovelove!
So Steampunk!

Take a look at my page :: danon jewellery ltd

Anonymous said...

Have you ever considered creating an e-book or guest authoring on other
blogs? I have a blog based upon on the same topics you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information.
I know my visitors would enjoy your work. If you're even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e-mail.

Also visit my web page; hultquist bracelets ()

Anonymous said...

I'd personally market it now due to the fact s near to an excellent I'd
expect anytime the purchase price will drop will ultimately
fall like a rock in water. Best of luck!
References :

Also visit my page - danon jewellery stockists