Document: 446 U.S. 643 100 S.Ct. 1925 64 L.Ed.2d 580 CATALANO, INC., et al.v.TARGET SALES, al. No. 79-1101. May 27, 1980. Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, See 448 911, 101 26. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioners, a conditionally certified class of beer retailers in the Fresno, Cal., area, brought suit against respondent wholesalers alleging that they had conspired to eliminate short-term trade credit formerly granted on purchases violation § Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1. The District Court entered an interlocutory order, which among other things, denied petitioners' "motion declare this case per se illegality," and then United States Appeals for Ninth Circuit, pursuant 28 1292(b),1 question whether alleged agreement competitors fixing terms, if proved, was unlawful its face.2 permission appeal, and, with one judge dissenting, agreed horizontal fix terms does not necessarily contravene antitrust laws. 5th Cir., 605 F.2d 1097 (1979).3 We grant petition certiorari reverse judgment Appeals. 2 For purposes decision we assume following facts amended complaint4 be true. Petitioners allege that, beginning early 1967, secretly agreed, order competition themselves, December 1967 would sell only payment were made advance or upon delivery. Prior agreement, extended without interest up 30- 42-day limits permitted by state law.5 According petition, prior competed each respect credit, individual varied substantially.6 After entering into respondents uniformly refused extend any at all. 3 decided credit-fixing should characterized form price fixing. court suggested such might actually enhance two ways: (1) "by removing barrier perceived some sellers market entry," (2) increased visibility possible credit." Id., 1099. 4 In dissent, Judge Blumenfeld7 expressed opinion 1104. He reasoned extension interest-free is indirect reduction elimination therefore method raising prices: 5 "The purchase goods creates obligation pay them. Credit component overall paid product. cost retailer purchasing consists amount he has obtain goods, date make payment. If there differential between cash time, difference but part price. Hogg v. Ruffner, 66 (1 Black) 115, 118-119, 17 L.Ed. 38 (1861). Allowing effectively reduces beer, when compared requirement same immediately cash; conversely, free equivalent increase." 1103. 6 It followed, his view, just plainly anticompetitive direct raise prices. Consequently, no further inquiry under rule reason, see National Society Professional Engineers States, 435 679, 98 1355, 55 637 (1978), required establish agreement's unlawfulness. 7 Our cases fully support Blumenfeld's analysis foreclose both justifications majority relied.8 Broadcast Music, Inc. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 1, 7-8, 99 1551, 1556, 60 (1979), said: 8 "In construing applying Act's ban contracts, conspiracies, combinations restraint trade, held certain agreements practices are so 'plainly anticompetitive,' 692, 1365, (1978); Continental T. V., GTE Sylvania 433 36, 50, 97 2549, 2557 (1977), often 'lack . redeeming virtue,' Northern Pac. R. Co. 356 5, 78 514, 518, 545 (1958), conclusively presumed illegal examination reason generally applied Act cases."9 9 A prices archetypal example practice. long been settled se. excuse fixed themselves reasonable. See, e. g., Trenton Potteries Co., 273 392, 397-398, 47 377, 379, 71 700 (1927); Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 290, 340-341, 540, 558-559, 41 1007 (1897). Socony-Vacuum Oil 310 150, 811, 84 1129 (1940), engage program buying surplus gasoline spot prevent from falling sharply reasonableness program, even though actual maintained. course opinion, clear 10 "the machinery employed combination price-fixing immaterial. 11 "Under formed purpose effect raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, stabilizing commodity interstate foreign commerce se." 223, S.Ct., 844. 12 Thus, have substantially less impact than case. example, Sugar Institute 297 553, 601-602, 56 629, 643, 80 859 (1936), adhere previously announced sale, announcements perfectly lawful particular private agreement. Similarly, competing firms professional engineers refuse discuss potential customers until after negotiations resulted initial selection engineer requiring inquiry. supra, 692-693, 1365-1366. Indeed, use specific quoting may unlawful. Cf. FTC Cement Institute, 333 683, 690-693, 68 793, 798-799, 92 1010 (1948).10 13 virtually self-evident extending period time giving discount equal value time. must inseparable price.11 An terminate practice thus tantamount discounts, falls squarely within traditional fixing.12 While it variable discounts will ultimately lead competitive corresponding decreases invoice price, surely anticipated. more realistic view sales extinguishing sellers. event, concerted activity entails obvious risk apparent potentially value, fact turn out harmless set circumstances being declared 14 panel suggested, however, remove who wish enter market. But able increase level curtail production could argued making attractive new entrants. justifies imposing kind voluntary another their freedom, seem follow successful level, safer attack. Nothing inconsistent our cases. Nor can informing function visibility, justify wholesaler's freedom select own sale. For, again, industrywide result accurate understanding offered all parties As demonstrates, plain distinction right publish hand, limiting action published prices, other. 16 reasoning cases, unless makes either delivery "plainly anticompetitive." Since merely since adjudged lack "redeeming virtue," reason. Accordingly, reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 18 ordered. Title 1292(b) provides: "When district judge, civil otherwise appealable section, shall involves controlling law substantial ground immediate appeal materially ultimate termination litigation, writing order. thereupon, discretion, permit taken application ten days entry order: Provided, That hereunder stay thereof order." pertinent part, Judge's read follows: " 'In Court, law, constitutes Section (15 1), litigation issue central conduct discovery trial case.' App. D Pet. Cert. also summary plaintiffs failure injury fact. Those appealed separately. consolidated unanimously reversed portion Court's No review sought ruling. Record 152. Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Ann. 25509 (West Supp.1980). 4. Senior Connecticut, sitting designation. Respondents nowhere suggest procompetitive justification credit. Their argument confined disputing establishes face. quotation Pacific drawn passage: "[T]here because pernicious virtue unreasonable elaborate precise harm caused business use. This principle unreasonableness type restraints proscribed benefit everyone concerned, avoids necessity incredibly complicated prolonged economic investigation —an wholly fruitless undertaken. Among courts heretofore deemed [is] ." multiple basing point pricing system unfair prohibited Federal Trade Commission 45, violate Act. Fortner Enterprises, Steel Corp., 394 495, 507, 89 1252, 1260, 22 495 (1969): usual sale seller, single corporation, simply determining how much constitute item entire transaction considered involve product." G. Lamb C. Shields, Association Law Practice 129 (rev. ed. 1971) ("Credit increasingly viewed elements interference regarded Act"). P. Areeda, Antitrust Analysis 878 (2d 1974) ("To charge is, economically speaking, discriminate former"); Black Mfrs. Protective Assn. 268 588, 600, 45 586, 590, 69 1104 (1925), upheld exchange information concerning fraud members association, noted "[t]he evidence far short establishing basis customers, co-operation distribution information, consequences naturally ensue exercise manufacturers determining, available require security given customer." Swift 196 375, 394, 25 276, 277, 278, 49 518 (1905); Wall Products Gypsum 326 F.Supp. 295 (N.D.Cal.1971).

Category: 7