Opinion ID: $opinion_id
Heading Depth: 1.0
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: $label

Text: Minnesota Mining further contends that even though § 5 (b) tolls Commission proceedings, the suit here, insofar as it asserts Sherman Act claims, is not based in part on any matter complained of in the Commission's proceeding. We cannot agree.

New Jersey Wood's Sherman Act claims rest on an alleged conspiracy to restrain and attempt to monopolize trade and commerce in the manufacture, sale and distribution of electrical insulation products. The purposes of the conspiracy were alleged to be: (1) to control Insulation Wires; (2) to prevent it from distributing New Jersey Wood products; (3) to insure that Insulation Wires' supplies were purchased from a Minnesota Mining subsidiary; (4) to effect tie-in sales of electrical insulation products with other Minnesota Mining products; and (5) to have Essex deal only with Insulation Wires in purchasing electrical insulation products to the exclusion of competitive distributors handling New Jersey Wood products. The effect of the conspiracy was alleged to be the complete disruption of the pattern of manufacture, sale and distribution that New Jersey Wood had enjoyed with Insulation Wires and denial to it of access to substantial national markets for electrical insulation products.

Certainly the allegations are based "in part" on the Commission action. It charged that the Insulation Wires acquisition, along with that of another distributor, placed in the hands of Minnesota Mining, a manufacturer, two of the three largest distributors in the business; that following the acquisitions these distributors discontinued distribution of the products of a number of manufacturers who had used them prior to their acquisition by Minnesota Mining; and that the effect of such action by Minnesota Mining was "the actual or potential lessening of competition" in the manufacture, sale and distribution of insulation products and the foreclosure of other manufacturers from a substantial share of the markets for said products. It appears to us that both suits set up substantially the same claims. It is true that the Commission's Clayton Act proceeding required proof only of a potential anticompetitive effect while the Sherman Act carries the more onerous burden of proof of an actual restraint. The Commission complaint, however, did allege an "actual" as well as a "potential" lessening of competition, i. e., manufacturers "have been foreclosed from a substantial share of the markets." Moreover, the monopolization count was phrased in terms of an "attempt to monopolize," which may be illegal though not successful. See United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495, 525, 531-532 (1948).

Minnesota Mining's claim seems to be that the crucial difference between the Commission and the New Jersey Wood proceedings is that the former alleges conduct that may substantially lessen competition while the latter asserts activity that has actually done so. We think that this is a distinction without a difference and does not deprive New Jersey Wood of the tolling effect of § 5 (b). That clause provides for tolling as long as the private claim is based "in part on any matter complained of" in the government proceedings. The fact that New Jersey Wood claims that the same conduct has a greater anti-competitive effect does not make the conduct challenged any less a matter complained of in the government action. It merely requires it to meet a greater burden of proof as to the effect of the conspiracy before a Sherman Act claim can be sustained.

Affirmed.