Opinion ID: 200573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adverse Impact on Competition or Competitor

Text: 23 A well-pleaded § 264 claim must include allegations that the price discrimination was for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor located in Puerto Rico. In its complaint, DJM contends that Tex-Shield and Creative Apparel entered into an agreement involving, among other things, investment by Tex-Shield in Creative Apparel as part of a joint strategy to secure and maintain for the Blucher defendants monopoly power in United States trade and commerce in Chemical Protective Cloth ... and to attempt to secure and maintain, and to secure and maintain, monopoly power for Creative [Apparel] in United States trade and commerce in Chemical Protective Clothing, as well as in such trade and commerce in the § 8(a) market. 24 It is not irrational for a monopoly-holder such as Tex-Shield to act with the intent of sabotaging one of its two customers. 5 Such a concerted effort to establish and maintain monopoly power in the relevant markets, if proven, would meet § 264's purpose requirement because it would constitute an intent to harm competition in the chemical protective clothing market or eliminate DJM as Creative Apparel's competitor; thus, DJM's pleadings on this count suffice to meet § 264's intent requirement. Compare In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litig., 138 F. Supp.2d 25, 28 n. 4 (D.Me. 2001) (denying motion to dismiss where it was not irrational or implausible to infer agreement from the facts alleged), with DM Research, Inc. v. Coll. of Am. Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55-56 (1st Cir.1999) (affirming dismissal where complaint merely assert[ed] a conspiracy in conclusory terms and stating that allegation of some fact pertaining to an agreement would be necessary to overcome the improbability of a conspiracy against the interests of one or more of the parties).