Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

16. Foreclosure

 

18. Refusals to deal

 

 

17. Predation

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Spirit/Northwest Airlines
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 17 reading materials

Unit 17 class notes

 

Significant Precedents

Price predation

± Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking Co., 386 U.S. 685 (1967) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, Utah Pie Co. v. Carnation Co., Civ. No. C-148-61 (D. Utah filed Sept. 8, 1961)

Index to National Archives case file (no docket sheet was located)

Notice of Assignment (Sept. 8, 1961) (to Judge Willis W. Ritter)

Judgment (Feb. 23, 1963) (in favor of plaintiff agasint all three defendants on Section 2(a) claims)

Judgment n.o.v. (Feb. 23, 1963) (entering judgment for plaintiff on Continental Baking's Section 2(a) counterclaim against Utah Pie)

Decree (Feb. 23, 1963)

Commentary

Kenneth G. Elzinga & Thomas F. Hogarty, Utah Pie and the Consequences of Robinson-Patman, 21 J. L. & Econ. 427 (1978).

± Ward S. Bowman Jr., Restraint of Trade by the Supreme Court: The Utah Pie Case, 77 Yale L.J. 70 (1967).

 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (± Oyez)

± Barry Wright v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227 (1st Cir. 1983)

 

Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) (± Oyez)

District court

Verfied Complaint, Liggett Group, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Civ. No. C-84-617-D (M.D.N.C. filed July 2, 1984) (does not contain the Robinson-Patman Act count; later amended to include)

Docket sheet

Jury Charge (Feb. 15, 1990)

Issues (Mar. 20, 1990) (special verdict)

Judgment (Mar. 20, 1990)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 27, 1990) (granting jnov) (report at 748 F. Supp. 344)

Order and Judgment (Aug. 27, 1990)

Memorandum Opinion and Oder (Aug. 28, 1990) (denying motion for injunction)

Fourth Circuit

aff'd, Liggett Group, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 964 F.2d 335 (4th Cir. May 11, 1992) (No. 91-1221)

Supreme Court

Pettiion for a writ of certiorari

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Sept. 16, 1992)

Respondent's Brief in Opposition (Oct. 16, 1992)

Merits

Joint Appendix (Index)

Brief for the Petitioner (Dec. 31, 1992)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Feb. 3, 1993)

Reply Brief for the Petitioner (Mar. 1, 1993)

aff'd, Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993)

Commentary

Michael L. Denger & John A. Herfort, Predatory Pricing Claims after Brooke Group, 62 Antitrust L.J. 541 (1994).

Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, Trumping the Areeda-Turner Test: The Recoupment Standard in Brooke Group, 62 Antitrust L.J. 559 (1994).

Jonathan B. Baker, Predatory Pricing after Brooke Group: An Economic Perspective, 62 Antitrust L.J. 585 (1994).

Kenneth L. Glazer, Predatory Pricing and Beyond: Life after Brooke Group, 62 Antitrust L.J. 605 (1994).

Richard O. Zerbe, Jr. & Michael T. Mumford, Does Predatory Pricing Exist? Economic Theory and the Courts after Brooke Group, 41 Antitrust Bull. 949 (1996).

Nonprice predation

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312 (2007) (± Briefs) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. CV 00-1693-A (D. Or. filed Dec. 8, 2000)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 27, 2014)

Verdict (Apr. 18, 2003) (for plaintiff)

Money Judgment (Apr. 22, 2003)

Opinion and Order (July 7, 2003) (denying renewed motion for jnov)

Order Approving Supersedeas Bond and Granting Unopposed Motion to Stay Entry of Judgment Pending Appeal (July 17, 2003)

Opinion and Order Regarding Attorney Fee Petition and Cost Bill (Oct. 28, 2003) (reported at 2003 WL 23715982)

Order Approving Supplemental Supersedeas Bond and Granting Unopposed Motion to Stay Execution of Order Regarding Attorney Fee Petition and Cost Bill Pending Appeal (Nov. 6, 2003)

Ninth Circuit

Ross-Simmons Hardwood v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. 03-35669 (9th Cir. docketed Aug. 14, 2003)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 27, 2014)

aff'd, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. 03-35669 (9th Cir.May 31, 2005) (reported at 411 F.3d 1030)

Judgment (May 31, 2005)

Selected Supreme Court briefs

Brief for the Petitioner (Aug. 24, 2006)

Brief of Economists as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (Aug. 24, 2006)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Aug. 24, 2006)

Brief for Respondent (Oct. 12, 2006)

Brief for the American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent (Oct. 12, 2006)

Brief of Amicus Curiae States of California, Oregon, Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, West Virginia and Wisconsin in Support of Respondent (Oct. 12, 2006)

vacated and remanded, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312 (Feb. 20, 2007)

On remand to the Ninth Circuit

Opinion, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., No. 03-35669 (9th Cir. Apr 11, 2007) (No. 03-35669) (reported at 484 F.3d 1086) (remanding)

On remand to the district court

Stipulated Order Exonerating and Releasing Supersedeas Bonds (Apr. 26, 2007)

Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (Aug. 31, 2007)

Judgment of Dismissal (Sept. 4, 2007)

Commentary

Gordon C. Rausser & John R. Foote, Monopsony and Predatory Bidding in the Lumber Industry: The Weyerhaeuser Cases (2007), in The Antitrust Revolution 277 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 6th ed. 2014).

Price squeezes

 

± Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009) (± Briefs) (± Oyez), ± rev'g and remanding No. 05-56023 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007) (reported as 503 F.3d 876)

± Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae (supporting the petition for a writ of certiorari). The FTC declined to join the brief for the United States in supporting the petition. See Statement of the Federal Trade Commission (May 23, 2008)

Conspiratorial price predation
 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (± Oyez)

Solyndra LLC v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., No. 12-cv-5272 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss) (see below for briefs and other case materials)

DOJ Section 2 Report (2008)

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (issued by the Bush administration on Sept. 11, 2008) (withdrawn by the Obama administration on May 11, 2009).

Chapter 4: Price Predation

 

Spirit/Northwest Airlines

Complaint

Complaint, Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 2:00-cv-71535-GER (E.D. Mich. (filed Mar. 29, 2000)

Docket sheet

Summary judgment

Opinion and Order Regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2003)
Reported as Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 00-71535, 2003 WL 24197742 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2003)

 
Judgment

Judgment (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2003)

 
Appeal

Amended Opinion (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2005) (reversing and remanding)
Reported as Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2005)

Docket sheet

Remand

Order of Dismissal of Plaintiff Spirit Airlines' Complaint against Defendant Northwest Airlines (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2008)

 
Commentary
 

Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, Predatory Pricing in the Airline Industry: Spirit Airlines v. Northwest Airlines (2005), in The Antitrust Revolution 307 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 6th ed. 2014).

± Aaron S. Edlin & Joseph Farrell, The American Airlines Case: A Chance to Clarify Predation Policy (2001), in The Antitrust Revolution 502 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 4th ed. 2004).

± Connan Snider, Predatory Incentives and Predation Policy: The American Airlines Case (Sept. 22, 2009).

Reference Materials

Legal commentary

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, The Areeda-Turner Test for Exclusionary Pricing: A Critical Journal (U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-16 Apr. 18, 2014).

± Christopher R. Leslie, Predatory Pricing and Recoupment, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 1695 (2013)

± Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 697 (1975).

F.M. Scherer, Predatory Pricing and the Sherman Act: A Comment, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 869 (1976).

Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Scherer on Predatory Pricing: A Reply, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 891 (1976).

F.M. Scherer, Some Last Words on Predatory Pricing, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 901 (1976)

DOJ Section 2 report

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act ch. 4: Price Predation (2008)

Issued by the Bush administration on Sept. 11, 2008
Withdrawn by the Obama administration on May 11, 2009).

Price squeezes

± John Doe 1 v. Abbott Labs., No. 08-17699 (9th Cir. July 7, 2009) (reported as 571 F.3d 930)

Conspiratorial price predation

Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) (± Oyez)

Solyndra LLC v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., No. 12-cv-5272 (N.D. Cal.Mar. 31, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss) (see below for briefs and other case materials)

Robinson-Patman Act § 3

Section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act prohibits, among other things, selling “goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.” Pub. L. No. 74-692, § 3, 49 Stat.. 1528 (1936) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13a). At least since 1958, Section 3 has only been enforceable criminally. See ± Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373 (1958) (holding that Section 3 is not an "antitrust law" within the definition of Section 1 of the Clayton Act and hence not subject to the private causes of action under Section 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act).

The section is primarily of historical interest. The last time the Department of Justice brought a criminal Section 3 case was in 1963. See Indictment, United States v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., Cr. 63-110-C (D. Mass. filed Mar. 15, 1963) (Blue Book No. 1742) (DOJ press release). The DOJ litigated the case and lost.

State cases

Bay Guardian Co. v. New Times Media LLC, No. A122448 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010) (reported as 187 Cal. App. 4th 438 ) (holding that recoupment is not an element of a Section 17043 offense and that proof of intent to injure a single competitor is sufficient)

History of price predation

± Nicola Giocoli, Games Judges Don't Play: Predatory Pricing and Strategic Reasoning in US Antitrust (Aug. 1, 2010).

± Nicola Giocoli, When Low Is No Good: Predatory Pricing and US Antitrust Law (1950-1980) (June 1, 2009).

Economics of price predation

± Chiara Fumagalliy & Massimo Motta, A Simple Theory of Predation, 56 J.L. & Econ. 595 (2013).

± Yossi Spiegel & Konrad Stahl, A Dynamic Model of Predation (June 11, 2013) (slides)

± David Besanko, Ulrich Doraszelski & Yaroslav Kryukov, Sacrifice Tests for Predation in a Dynamic Pricing Model: Ordover & Willig (1981) and Cabral & Riordan (1997) meet
Ericson & Pakes
(1995) (Oct. 15, 2013).

± David Besanko, Ulrich Doraszelski & Yaroslav Kryukov, The Economics of Predation: What Drives Prices When There is Learning-by-Doing? (May 7, 2013). (± Online Appendix)

± Aaron S. Edlin, Predatory Pricing (2010), forthcoming in Research Handbook on the Economics of Antitrust Law (Einer Elhauge ed.).

± Nicola Giocoli, Games Judges Don't Play: Predatory Pricing and Strategic Reasoning in US antitrust (2010)

± Russell Pittman, Who Are You Calling Irrational? Marginal Costs, Variable Costs, and the Pricing Practices of Firms (U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Econ. Analysis Group Working Paper No. EAG 09-3, July 2009).

Patrick Bolton, Joseph F. Brodley & Michael H. Riordan, Predatory Pricing: Strategic Theory and Legal Policy, 88 Geo. L.J. 2239 (2000).

Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, Predatory Pricing and Strategic Theory, 89 Geo. L.J. 2475 (2001).

Patrick Bolton, Joseph F. Brodley & Michael H. Riordan, Predatory Pricing: Response to Critique and Further Elaboration, 89 Geo. L.J. 2495 (2001).

William J. Baumol, Predation and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test, 39 J. L.& Econ. 49 (1996).

Alvin K. Klevorick, The Current State of the Law and Economics of Predatory Pricing, 83 Am. Econ. Rev. 162 (Papers & Proceedings 1993).

Janusz A. Ordover & Garth Saloner, Predation, Monopolization, and Antitrust, in 1 Handbook of Industrial Organization 537 (R. Schmalensee & R. Willig eds., 1989).

George A. Hay, Predatory Pricing, 58 Antitrust L.J. 913 (1989).

± Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, A "Signal-Jamming" Theory of Predation, 17 RAND J. Econ. 366 (1986).

R. Mark Isaac & Vernon L. Smith, In Search of Predatory Pricing, 85 J. Pol. Econ. 320 (1985).

± Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence, 27 J. Econ. Theory 280 (1982).

Frank Easterbrook, Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies, 48 U. Chi. L. Rev. 263 (1981)

± Janusz A. Ordover & Robert D. Willig, An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation, 91 Yale L.J. 8 (1981).

± Paul L. Joskow & Alvin K. Klevorick, A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy, 89 Yale L.J. 213 (1979).

Steven C. Salop, Strategic Entry Deterrence, 69 Am. Econ. Rev. 335 (1979).

Oliver E. Williamson, Predatory Pricing: A Strategic and Welfare Analysis, 87 Yale L. J. 284 (1977).

Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Williamson on Predatory Pricing, 87 Yale L. J. 1337 (1978).

Oliver E. Williamson, A Preliminary Response, 87 Yale L. J. 1353 (1978)

Oliver E. Williamson, Williamson on Predatory Pricing II, 88 Yale L. J. 1183 (1979)

Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Predatory Pricing: A Rejoinder, 88 Yale L. J. 1641 (1979).

Applied studies

± David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, Predation and its Rate of Return: The Sugar Industry, 1887-1914 (NBER May 1997), final version at 37 RAND J. Econ. 47 (2006).

Kenneth G. Elzinga, Predatory Pricing: The Case of the Gunpowder Trust, 13 J. L. Econ. 23 (1970).

± John S. McGee, Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case, 1 J.L. & Econ. 137 (1958)

John S. McGee, Predatory Pricing Revisited, 23 J.L. & Econ. 289 (1980).

± Elizabeth Granitz & Benjamin Klein, Monopolization by "Raising Rivals' Costs": The Standard Oil Case, 39 J.L. & Econ. 1 (1996).

Excessive prices

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Excessive Prices (DAF/COMP(2011)18, Feb. 7, 2012).

Predation in Europe

Press Release IP/15/6271, Antitrust: Commission Sends Two Statements of Objections on Exclusivity Payments and Predatory Pricing to Qualcomm (Dec. 8, 2015).

Case Studies

Energy Conversion (private 2013)
Solyndra (private 2012)
Felder's Collision Parts (private action 2012)
American Airlines (DOJ 1999)

Energy Conversion
(private 2013)

District court

Complaint, Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd., No.2:13-cv-14241-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. filed Oct. 4, 2013)

Exhibit A: The Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission Issued Findings That Defendants Dumped Solar Panels in the United States Market At Prices Below Fair Value That Injured American Producers.

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 9, 2014)

Opinion And Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion To Transfer (June 18, 2014)

Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Joint Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd., No.2:13-cv-14241-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2014)

Judgment (Oct. 31, 2014)

Sixth Circuit

Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd., No. 15-2130 (6th Cir. docketed Sept. 22, 2015).

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 26, 2016)

Brief for Appellant Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust (Jan. 29, 2016)

Brief of Defendants-Appellees (Mar. 2, 2016)

Reply Brief for Appellant Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust (Apr. 4, 2016)

Argued (June 15, 2016)

Opinion, Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd., No. 15-2130 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2016)

Solyndra
(private action 2012)

Complaint for Violations of §§ 1 & 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Unfair Practices Act, the Cartwright Act, and for Tortious Interference, Solyndra LLC v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., No. 12-cv-5272 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 11, 2012) (alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices and dominate the market for solar panels in the United States by selling their Chinese-made panels at “below cost, non-competitive prices” and thereby driving domestic manufacturers, including Solyndra, from the market)

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 31, 2016)

Amended Complaint for Violations of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Unfair Practices Act, the Cartwright Act, and for Tortious Interference (Feb. 14, 2013)

Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Mar. 8, 2013)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 12, 2013)

Reply in Support of Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (May 3, 2013)

Order Denying Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Mar. 31, 2014)

Trina Solar Limited and Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc.’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Violations of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Unfair Practices Act, the Cartwright Act, and for Tortious Interference (May 7, 2014)

Yingli Defendants’ Answert to the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff R. Todd Neilson, As Liquidating Trustee on Behalf of Solyndra Residual Trust (May 7, 2014)

Defendant Suntech America, Inc.’s Answer to Plaintiff Solyndra Residual Trust’s Amended Complaint (May 7, 2014)

Notice and Order Regarding Settlement Conference (May 5, 2015)

Stipulation of Dismissal (June 3, 2016) (entered June 3, 2016)

Felder's Collision Parts
(private action 2012)

District court

Complaint, Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. v. General Motors Co., No. 3:12-cv-00646-JJB-SCR (M.D. La. filed Oct. 14, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 14, 2014)

Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 17, 2013)

First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Oct. 14, 2013)

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Nov. 18, 2013)

Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Nov. 18, 2013)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Dec. 9, 2013)

Defendant's Rely Memorandum in support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Dec. 23, 2013)

Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Apr. 23, 2014)

Judgment (Apr. 23, 2014)

Notice of Appeal (Apr. 29, 2013)

Fifth Circuit

Docket sheet (No. 14-30410) (downloaded Nov. 9, 2014)

Original Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Felder’s Collision Parts, Incorporated (June 30, 2014)

Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Automotive Body Parts Association in Support of Appellants (July 10, 2014)

Brief of Appellees (Aug. 19, 2014)

Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. (Sept. 5, 2014)

Opinion, Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. v. All Star Advertising Agency, No. 14-30410 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2015)

American Airlines
(DOJ 1999)

District court

Complaint, United States v. AMR Corp., No. 99-1180-JTM (D. Kan. filed May 13, 1999)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 27, 2014)

Memorandum and Order (Apr. 27, 2001)

Notice of Appeal (June 25, 2001)

Tenth Circuit

United States v. AMR Corp., No. 01-3202 (10th Cir. docketed July 5, 2001)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 27, 2014)

Brief for Appellant United States of America (Jan. 11, 2002)

Appellees' Brief (Feb. 26, 2002)

Reply Brief for Appellant United States of America (Mar. 19, 2002)

aff'd, Judgment (July 3, 2003) (reported at 335 F.3d 1109)

± DOJ web page

 

Commentary

± Connan Snider, Predatory Incentives and Predation Policy: The American Airlines Case (September 22, 2009).

± Aaron Edlin & Joseph Farrell, The American Airlines Case: A Chance to Clarify Predation Policy, The Antitrust Revolution (4th ed. J. Kwoka & Lawrence J. White eds. 2004).

± Gregory J. Werden, The American Airlines Decision: Not with a Bang but a Whimper (U.S. Dep't of Justice Antitrust Div. Working Paper No. EAG 03-8. Sept. 2003).

± Leah Platt, Predatory Pricing: How the Airlines Kill Their Competitors, Screw Their Customers, and Get Away With It, The American Prospect (Apr. 10, 2001).

 

16. Foreclosure

18. Refusals to deal