Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. La.: Vertical conspiracy claims flop in pool products suit, (May 2, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Allegations that the largest pool products distributor in the United States conspired with three manufacturers to exclude other distributors from the market were insufficient to withstand summary judgment, the federal district court in New Orleans has concluded. The court granted the distributor’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the three vertical agreements at issue injured competition (In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, April 29, 2016, Vance, S.).

Pool Corp. is the largest distributor of pool products in the United States. A class of direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs claimed, in part, that Pool Corp. violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by reaching vertical agreements with three of the largest pool products manufacturers in the United States, including Hayward Industries, Inc., Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that the three vertical agreements restricted rivals’ access to supply from the manufacturer defendants and foreclosed rivals from selling to Pool Corp.’s customers. Pool Corp. moved for summary judgment on the vertical conspiracy claims.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, agreeing with Pool Corp. that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the vertical agreements injured competition. It was undisputed that Pool did not maintain an exclusive distributorship with any of the three manufacturer defendants, according to the court. The court also found that Pool Corp.’s preferred vendor program required that vendors conduct $2 million worth of business with Pool, while manufacturers could and did do business with other distributers. Lastly, the purported direct purchaser plaintiffs’ expert confirmed that the three manufacturer defendants conducted the majority of their business with entities other than Pool Corp.

The case is No. 2:12-md-02328-SSV.

Attorneys: Russ M. Herman (Herman Herman & Katz, LLC) for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel. Thomas J. H. Brill (Law Office of Thomas H. Brill) for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel. William Bernard Gaudet (Adams and Reese LLP) for Defendants’ Liaison Counsel. David H. Bamberger (DLA Piper, LLP) for Defendants’ Lead Counsel.

Companies: Pool Corp.; Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.; Hayward Industries, Inc.; Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust LouisianaNews