Statement of Chairman
Robert Pitofsky and In the Matter of The Commission today enters a consent order with American Cyanamid prohibiting it from engaging in conduct designed to prevent its dealers from making discounted sales below the minimum price that American Cyanamid specified. American Cyanamid entered into written agreements with its dealers that provided dealers with "rebates" each time they sold their product at or above a certain resale price (the floor transfer price). For dealers who sold at the specified price, this rebate constituted their entire profit margin. The Commission believes that this conduct amounted to an illegal resale price maintenance agreement. Commissioner Starek, in his dissent, criticizes this enforcement action for a number of reasons. As explained below, we disagree with Commissioner Starek's reasoning. First, the dissenting statement appears to conclude that a situation where a manufacturer and a dealer enter into an express agreement that the manufacturer will pay the dealer to adhere to the manufacturer's specified resale price, is not an "agreement on resale prices" but rather some form of voluntary behavior. Judge Posner responded to similar arguments in Khan v. State Oil.(1) In Khan, the court declared a maximum resale price arrangement per se illegal where the manufacturer permitted dealers to charge above a maximum price, but required them in such case to provide any resulting profit above the maximum price to the manufacturer. The "voluntary" nature of the arrangement did not detract from the finding that there was an agreement. Judge Posner noted that the arrangement was indistinguishable from an agreement not to exceed the maximum price, because the dealer was sanctioned for violating the agreement by having to remit any resulting profit to the manufacturer. In responding to State Oil's argument that there was no price fixing agreement, Judge Posner observed: "The purely formal character of the distinction that it urges can be seen by imagining that the contract had forbidden Khan to exceed the suggested resale price and had provided that if he violated the prohibition the sanction would be for him to remit any resulting profit to State Oil."(2) We agree with Judge Posner. In this case, the sanction was loss of the rebate for sales made below the floor transfer price. If an agreement to forego one's entire profit margin if one departs from the specified price does not constitute a price maintenance agreement, then nothing remains of the per se rule. Second, the dissent seems to suggest that this case is one where agreement is being inferred from unilateral conduct. We cannot concur. American Cyanamid entered into written agreements which offered financial incentives for adherence to a minimum price schedule. Courts, both before and after Sharp,(3) have held such arrangements unlawful where adherence to a suggested price was the quid pro quo for the financial inducements. Judge Posner's decision in Khan is consistent with this approach.(4) Third, the dissenting statement, relying in large part on recent economic literature, argues that American Cyanamid's program should not be condemned without proof of a supplier cartel, dealer cartel, or market power.(5) That view is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's view that resale price maintenance continues to be illegal per se and we reject the idea that the Supreme Court can be overruled by scholarly contributions to economic journals. Finally, we cannot agree with the suggestion that this enforcement action somehow creates uncertainty about the Commission's treatment of pass through rebates or cooperative advertising programs. As the analysis to aid public comment explains, pass through programs have always been permitted, as long as the dealer is free to discount to an even greater extent than the pass through amount. Similarly, both the courts and the Commission have judged cooperative advertising cases under the rule of reason, as long as the arrangements do not limit the dealer's right: (1) to discount below the advertised price, and (2) to advertise at any price when the dealer itself pays for the advertisement. Unlike those programs, American Cyanamid's rebate program controlled the actual prices charged and was structured to prevent dealers from pricing below the floor transfer price. Attachment to Statement of
Chairman Pitofsky, ANALYSIS TO AID PUBLIC COMMENT
ON The Federal Trade Commission ("the Commission") has accepted an agreement to a proposed consent order from American Home Products Corporation ("AHP"), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, American Cyanamid Company ("American Cyanamid"), located in Parsippany, New Jersey. The agreement would settle charges by the Commission that American Cyanamid violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in practices that restricted competition in the domestic markets for crop protection chemicals, which are herbicides and insecticides widely used in commercial agriculture. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment concerning the consent order and any other aspect of American Cyanamid's alleged anticompetitive conduct relating to its C.R.O.P. and A.P.E.X. rebate programs. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and order or to modify its terms in any way. The Complaint The complaint prepared for issuance by the Commission along with the proposed order alleges that American Cyanamid has engaged in acts and practices that have unreasonably restrained competition in the sale and distribution of crop protection chemicals in the United States. In 1995, the Commission's proposed complaint alleges, American Cyanamid sold at retail more than $1 billion of its crop protection chemicals and was the market share leader in three domestic crop protection chemical markets: soybean broadleaf herbicides, soybean grass herbicides, and corn soil insecticides, as well as being the second-largest domestic producer of cotton grass herbicides. According to the complaint, American Cyanamid operated two cash rebate programs for its retail dealers for approximately five years. From 1989-1992, the plan was called the "Cash Reward on Performance" ("C.R.O.P.") program, and was renamed the "Award for Performance Excellence" ("A.P.E.X.") program in late 1992 through August 1995. The complaint states that American Cyanamid entered into written agreements with its dealers under these programs, pursuant to which American Cyanamid offered to pay its dealers substantial rebates on each sale of its crop protection chemicals that was made at or above specified minimum resale prices. According to the complaint, the dealers overwhelmingly accepted American Cyanamid's rebate offer by selling at or above the specified minimum resale prices. The complaint further alleges that the wholesale prices in the agreements were set at a level equal to the specified minimum resale prices, and because a dealer received no rebate on sales below the specified prices, those sales were made at a loss to the dealer. The complaint further states that although American Cyanamid included certain non-price performance criteria in its rebate programs that could increase the amount of the rebate, a dealer's compliance with these performance criteria was neither necessary nor, by itself, sufficient to obtain rebates. As examples, the complaint alleges that if a dealer met all of American Cyanamid's performance criteria, but sold the product for less than American Cyanamid's specified minimum resale price, that dealer received no rebate on the sale. On the other hand, if the dealer met none of the performance criteria, but sold the product at or above American Cyanamid's specified minimum resale price, the dealer nonetheless received a rebate on that sale. American Cyanamid's conditioning of financial payments on dealers' charging a specified minimum price amounted to the quid pro quo of an agreement on resale prices. In cases where this issue has arisen, both before and after the Supreme Court examined the per se rule against resale price maintenance in Monsanto and Sharp,(6) courts have treated such agreements as per se illegal. See Lehrman v. Gulf Oil Corp., 464 F.2d 26, 39, 40 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 (1972) (stating that ". . . adherence to a suggested price schedule was the quid pro quo for Lehrman's receiving Gulf's TCAs [temporary competitive allowances]" and "there is no comparable justification for conditioning wholesale price support upon adherence to a schedule of minimum retail prices." (emphasis in original)); Butera v. Sun Oil Co., Inc., 496 F.2d 434, 437 (1st Cir. 1974). By offering financial inducements in return for selling at specified minimum prices, a manufacturer seeks the "acquiescence or agreement" of its dealers in a resale price-fixing scheme. Monsanto, 465 U.S. at 764 n. 9. The dealer, in turn, accepts the manufacturer's offer by selling at or above the specified minimum prices. See Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc., 825 F.2d 1158, 1164 (7th Cir. 1987) (Posner, J.) (an "obvious" resale price-fixing agreement is found ". . . if [the manufacturer] had told [the dealer] that it would reduce its wholesale price to him if he raised his retail price, and [the dealer] had accepted the offer by raising his price."). See also Khan v. State Oil Co., 93 F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (7th Cir. 1996) (Posner, J.), petition for cert. pending (No. 96-871) (agreement on price found where dealership agreement on its face allowed dealer to charge any resale price it wished, but distributor tied financial consequences to dealers' not charging the resale prices it suggested). As a result, incentives to reduce price below the specified level were substantially affected by American Cyanamid's rebate scheme. The rebate programs challenged in this case are unlike situations where manufacturers are permitted to condition a discount or other incentive on that discount being "passed through" to consumers, which prevents a dealer from simply "pocketing" the discount. In these types of cases, the dealer is free to sell at even lower prices than the amount of the direct "pass through" of the discount or other incentive. Discounts cannot be conditioned, therefore, on the dealers' adherence to specified minimum prices. See AAA Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., 705 F.2d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 919 (1983) (Seagram's requirement of passing through its discount "[did] not prohibit the wholesaler from making greater reductions in price than the discount provides."). See also Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 24 F.3d 401, 409-10 (2d Cir. 1994); Lewis Service Center, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 714 F.2d 842, 845-47 (8th Cir. 1983) (because dealers could discount more than Mack's sales assistance, the court found that "the purpose of Mack's discount program [was] not to force adherence to any particular price scheme of Mack's."). The Proposed Consent Order Part I of the proposed order covers definitions. These definitions make clear that the consent order applies to the directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives of American Cyanamid. The order also defines the terms product, dealer and resale price. Part II of the order contains two major operative provisions: Part II(A) deals with the specific conduct at issue in this case. It prohibits American Cyanamid from conditioning the payment of rebates or other incentives on the resale prices its dealers charge for its products. Part II(B) prevents American Cyanamid from otherwise agreeing with its dealers generally to control or maintain resale prices. Neither of these provisions should be construed to prohibit lawful cooperative advertising programs or "pass through" discount programs that are not otherwise part of an unlawful resale price maintenance scheme. The Commission has previously determined that order provisions prohibiting agreements on resale prices do not restrict a company's ability to implement otherwise lawful cooperative advertising and "pass through" rebate plans because such programs do not, in themselves, constitute agreements on resale prices. See, e.g., In Re Magnavox Co., 113 F.T.C. 255, 263, 269-70 (1990). Part III of the order requires that for a period of three (3) years from the date on which the order becomes final, American Cyanamid shall include a statement, posted clearly and conspicuously, on any price list, advertising, catalogue or other promotional material where it has suggested a resale price for any product to any dealer. The required statement explains that while American Cyanamid may suggest resale prices for its products, dealers remain free to determine on their own the prices at which they will sell American Cyanamid's products. Part IV of the order requires that for a period of three (3) years from the date on which the order becomes final, American Cyanamid shall mail the letter attached to the order as Exhibit A and a copy of this order to all of its current dealers, distributors, officers, management employees, and agents or representatives with sales or policy responsibilities for American Cyanamid's products. American Cyanamid also must mail the letter and order to any new dealer, distributor or employee in the above positions within thirty (30) days after the commencement of that person's affiliation or employment with American Cyanamid. All of the above dealers, distributors and employees must sign and return a statement to American Cyanamid within thirty (30) days of receipt that acknowledges they have read the order and that they understand that non-compliance with the order may subject American Cyanamid to penalties for violation of the order. Part V of the order requires that American Cyanamid file with the Commission an annual verified written report giving the details of the manner and form in which American Cyanamid is complying and has complied with the order. In addition, Part V of the order also requires American Cyanamid to maintain and make available to the Commission upon reasonable notice all records of communications with dealers, distributors, and agents or representatives relating to resale prices in the United States, as well as records of any action taken in connection with activities covered by the rest of the order. Finally, American Cyanamid must inform the Commission at least thirty (30) days before any proposed changes in the corporation, such as dissolution or sale. 1. 93 F.3d 1358 (7th Cir.), cert. granted, __ S. Ct. ___ (1996). 2. Id. at 1361. See also Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc., 825 F.2d 1158, 1164 (7th Cir. 1987) (in finding a violation based on economic coercion, Judge Posner noted, "It is as if Vermont Castings had told Isaksen that it would reduce its wholesale price to him if he raised his retail price, and Isaksen had accepted the offer by raising his price."). 3. Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988). 4. 93 F.3d at 1362. 5. Although we do not fully detail our disagreement with the description of the facts in the dissent, we believe that a full trial would have shown that an overwhelming portion of sales were made at or above the minimum resale price. Moreover, a dealer's advisory council voted to advise American Cyanamid to retain the program in order to protect its margins. 6. Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988); Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984). |