2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-25-2004 

# 2660 W o o d ley Ro a d v

. ITT S he r at on C orp

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1297

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion "2660 W ood ley Ro a d v

. ITT S he r at on C or p " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 647. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/647IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

Nos. 02-1297/ 1418

2660 WOODLEY ROAD JOINT VENTURE; W OO DL EY RO AD AS SO CIA TE S, IN C.; JOHN HANC OCK MUTUAL LI FE I NSURANCE COMPANY;

*SUMITOMO LI FE REALTY ( N.Y. ) I NC.

v.
IT T SHER ATON CORP ORATI ON; SHERAT ON OPERA TI NG CORPOR ATI ON; WA SHING TON SHER ATO N CO RPOR ATION **

ITT Sheraton Corpor ation, Sheraton Operat

ing Corporation and Washington Sheraton Corporati on,**

Appellant

No. 02-1297 (*Dismiss ed per the Clerk Order of 5/23/02) (**Dismiss ed per the Court Order of 9/25/02)

2660 WOODLEY ROAD JOINT VENTURE; W OO DL EY RO AD AS SO CIA TE S, IN C.; JOHN HANC OCK MUTUAL LI FE I NSURANCE COMPANY;

*SUMITOMO LI FE REALTY ( N.Y. ) I NC. Ap pellan ts No. 02-1418

v.
IT T SHER ATON CORP ORATI ON; SHERAT ON OPERA TI NG CORPOR ATI ON; WA SHING TON SHER ATO N CO RPOR ATION ** (*Dismiss ed per the Clerk Order of 5/23/02) (**Dismiss ed per the Court Order of 9/25/02)* Hon orable W illiam W. Sc hwa rzer, Senior U nited States D istrict Judge, Northe rn

Distri ct of Cali fornia, sitting by designation. On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court

For the D istrict of Delaw are (D.C. Civ. No. 97-cv-00450) Chief D istrict Judge: Hon . Joseph J. Farn an, Jr.

BEFORE: AL ITO and M cK EE , Circuit Judges , a nd SC HWARZER, * Senior Distri ct Judge 

### ORDER AMENDING OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED , that t he Slip Opinion filed in t his cas e on May

25, 2004, b e amended as fo llows: On page 7, footnote 7, delete “ Hanc ockal so a ll ege s that th e r eba te sc heme put it at a c om petit ive d isad van tage to S her aton -ow ned hot els b eca use . Ac cord ing to H anco ck, “th e reba te sche me im pacte d the H otel dif feren tly than it d id Sh eraton -ow ned h otels: T he reb ate pro gram increa sed th e cos ts of the goo ds an d serv ices [H anco ck] p urch ased on b ehalf of the Ho tel, whereas the rebate sc heme did not i mpose a real cost on Sher aton-owned hotels , which si mply ‘ paid’ t he kickback to their

corporate parent .” 

### Replace it with “Hancock also al leges t hat therebate scheme put i t at a competitive disadvant age to Sheraton-owned hotel s because, accordi ng to Hancock, “t he rebate scheme impacte d the Hotel differe ntly than it did Sheraton-owned hotels: The rebate program increased the costs of t he goods and services [H anco ck] p urch ased on b ehalf of the Ho tel, wh ereas th e reba te sche me d id not impose a real cost

on Sheraton- owned hotels, which simply ‘paid’ the kickback t o their

corporate parent .” 

### At page 9, delete “ The carpente rs’ uni ons may wellhave had a cause of acti on under other

stat utes or common law, and a different plainti ff may have had a cause of a ction unde r the ant itr ust st atues. ” 

### Replace it with “The carpent ers’ uni ons may wellhave had a cause of a ction unde r other stat utes or common law, and a different plainti ff may have had a cause of actio n un der the a ntitru st sta tutes .”

### At page 9, delete “ In arriving at t hat decision, t

he Court read the antitrust statues in light o f their c om mo n law back grou nd an d read a “pro xima te cause el ement int o § 4 [Clay ton Act] ac tions .” Greater Rockf ord Energy , 998 F .2d at 394.” R eplace it with “In arriving at that decision, the C ourt read the antit

rust s tatutes in l ight of t heir common law background and read a “proximate cause el ement int o § 4 [Clay ton Act] ac tions .” Greater Rockford Energy , 998 F.2 d at 3 94.” At p age 1 3, dele te “T he jury fo und that H anco ck su ffere d $2 50,00 0 in damages rel ated t o the purcha sing services pr ogram and it also awarded $1,100,00 f

or Sherat on’s brea ch of fiduci ary duty .” 

### Replace it with “The juryfound that

Hancock suffered $250, 000 in damages re late d to the purchasin g services pro gram an d it also awa rded $1 ,100,000 f or Sherato n’s breach of fi duciary

duty .” 

### IT IS S O ORDERED.

BY THE COUR T: /s/ Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge Dated: Ma

y 25, 2004 CLC\cc: Robe

rt L. Brons ton, Esq. Andrew L. Fre

y, Esq. Evan M. Tager , Esq. Thomas A. Arena, Es q. John W. Shaw, Esq. Willi am E. Wallac e III, Esq.