Opinion ID: 626562
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Role of Hudson

Text: The district court found that, in light of Anderson's withdrawal of its assertion that Hudson took over Anderson's retail distribution business, there was no conceivable role for Hudson in the alleged conspiracy, 732 F.Supp.2d at 403, 405, because Hudson, a wholesaler rather than an entity higher in the distribution chain, could not cut off Anderson's magazine supply, id. at 403. We have several difficulties with this analysis. First, as discussed in Part II.A. above, § 1 applies not just to horizontal conspiracies between or among competitors but also to vertical contracts and to boycotts agreed to by a group of suppliers and their favored customer or customers. Second, the gist of conspiracy is agreement. Thus, if Hudsonassuring, along with News Group, a continuation of wholesaler servicesagreed with the publisher and distributor defendants to attempt to eliminate Anderson and Source as wholesalers, Hudson may be liable under § 1, even if it did not take over any of the business lost by Anderson. Third, although the court emphasized that Hudson could not engage in conduct that would parallel the conduct of the publishers or the distributors, it is entirely plausible that Hudson had an interest in participating in an endeavor to eliminate Anderson and SourceHudson's largest competitorsas wholesalers, hoping to gain market share. Indeed, the alleged goal of the conspiracy was to eliminate Anderson and Source in order to divide the wholesale market between News Group and Hudson and give News Group and Hudson exclusive territoriesthereby affording retailers no choice as to wholesale supplier ( see Part II.C.3.e. below). Fourth, the court's analysis, focusing solely on the concept of parallelism, disregarded Anderson's factual allegations. They include the allegation that on or about January 29, 2009, key employees of Curtis, DSI, and TWR, and of Hudson's competitor News Group (all identified by name in the PAC), met at Hudson's offices in North Bergen, New Jersey. Although the PAC did not identify the person or persons attending that meeting on behalf of Hudson, it is surely inferable that Hudson was represented, as the meeting was at its offices. Further, the fact that the meeting was held after normal business hours lends itself to a plausible inference that the meetingof two levels of competitors (three distributors and two wholesalers)was intended to be covert and that its purpose was anticompetitive.