Opinion ID: 486371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Robinson-Patman

Text: 50 Count III of Genesco's complaint simply restates the facts and asserts that the aforesaid actions constitute unfair trade practices in violation of section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act. Section 2(c) makes it unlawful for any person engaged in commerce ... to pay or grant, receive or accept anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation ... except for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods.... 15 U.S.C. Sec. 13(c) (1982). As already observed, Sec. 4 of the Clayton Act, under which Genesco's Robinson-Patman claims are brought, provides for an express private right of action for treble damages to any person injured in his business or property as a result of any antitrust violation. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15 (1982). Upon examining Sec. 4, the Supreme Court found no congressional purpose to preclude arbitration of international antitrust claims. Mitsubishi, 105 S.Ct. at 3355-61. Thus, we hold under Mitsubishi that the international Robinson-Patman claims are arbitrable as a matter of law. We now consider the claims at hand. 51 a) Kakiuchi-Japan 52 First, Genesco's Robinson-Patman claim against Kakiuchi-Japan is within the scope of the parties' arbitration provision. That claim is based on the imposition of overcharges, which we have already found to arise under the parties' sales agreements. Second, as noted, the transactions between Genesco and Kakiuchi-Japan arose in a truly international context. Thus, the dictates of Mitsubishi apply. Consequently, Genesco's Robinson-Patman claim against Kakiuchi-Japan must similarly be resolved through arbitration.b) Kakiuchi-America 53 For the same reasons, Genesco's Robinson-Patman claim against Kakiuchi-America is within the scope of the arbitration clause. But since Genesco's dealings with Kakiuchi-America do not arise in an international context, the teachings of Mitsubishi are not binding. See 105 S.Ct. at 3355 (declining to assess the legitimacy of the American Safety doctrine as applied to domestic transactions involving arbitration). Inasmuch as the Supreme Court will decide the continued applicability of the American Safety doctrine to domestic commercial transactions in its review of McMahon, see --- U.S. ---, 107 S.Ct. 60, 93 L.Ed.2d 20 (1986), this cause of action is also remanded to the district court again with the suggestion that it not go forward with trial until the Supreme Court renders its decision in McMahon.