BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Antitrust

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, September 10, 2020

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00

This CLE course will examine the antitrust issues that can arise with arrangements designed to influence resale prices or establish minimum advertised pricing (MAP), and the differing treatment of those arrangements in state, federal, and international jurisdictions. The panel will provide best practices for proceeding with such arrangements.

Faculty

Monts William
Shareholder
Hogan Lovells US LLP

Mr. Monts focuses his practice on antitrust and competition litigation, abuse of dominance and restrictive practices, competition compliance, class action and group litigation, and commercial litigation. He has handled virtually every kind of antitrust dispute — price fixing, market allocation, boycott, tying, price discrimination, and monopolization — for major international companies and domestic clients and associations in industries as diverse as automobiles, energy, healthcare, software, insurance, and the professions.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Lindsay Michael
Shareholder
Dorsey & Whitney Llp

Mr. Lindsay practices in the area of general civil litigation, with a strong emphasis on antitrust (litigation and counseling), trademark and unfair competition, commercial litigation. He regularly counsels clients on antitrust issues, particularly in matters involving distribution or pricing issues (including Robinson-Patman questions), and mergers and acquisitions.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

A dozen years ago, the Supreme Court upended a nearly 100-year precedent that resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements were per se illegal when it adopted the rule of reason standard in Leegin v. PSKS. Nonetheless, some states still treat RPMs as per se illegal under state antitrust statutes, creating compliance challenges for businesses. There is limited guidance from courts or the antitrust enforcement agencies.

Unlike an RPM agreement, a minimum advertised pricing (MAP) policy applies only to a retailer's advertised price, not its actual selling price. But depending on how a manufacturer structures and implements them, MAP policies can raise state or federal antitrust concerns. MAP policies also raise practical issues, such as where advertising ends and actual selling price begins.

With the uncertainty of differing state, federal, and international law, counsel to manufacturers and others in the distribution chain must carefully analyze the market and the potential impact of any arrangements designed to promote minimum resale prices or minimum advertised prices. Counsel must determine whether those arrangements comply with antitrust law (or might lead to investigations or private lawsuits).

Listen as our experienced panel of antitrust attorneys examines how different jurisdictions--federal, state, and international--are treating RPM agreements and MAP policies. The panel will offer steps for moving forward with pricing and advertising programs while overcoming the differing treatment among these jurisdictions.

Outline

  1. Treatment of RPM agreements
    • Federal treatment
    • States
    • International
  2. Treatment of MAP programs
  3. Triggers that raise antitrust concerns
  4. Best practices for RPM and MAP programs going forward

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • How are federal courts and state antitrust authorities currently enforcing the law concerning RPM agreements, and how is that law applied to arrangements designed to influence resale prices even if there is no explicit agreement on such prices?
  • What do recent state actions signal for future state enforcement?
  • How can businesses and their counsel best cope with the conflicting treatment of RPM under differing legal regimes?
  • How do MAP policies differ from RPM agreements, and what are some pitfalls to avoid in implementing MAP policies?