Jury Rejects Conspiracy Claim Against Heavy Truck Manufacturer

This posting was written by Jeffrey May, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.

A federal jury in Philadelphia decided on June 11 that a truck dealership failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defending truck manufacturer engaged in a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The jury trial followed last year's federal appellate court decision (2008-1 Trade Cases ¶76,189), which permitted the truck dealership to proceed to trial with its claim that a defending truck manufacturer conspired with other dealers to restrain trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia decided that the complaining Ohio dealership had presented sufficient evidence of an agreement between competing dealers and the manufacturer for a jury to find an unlawful conspiracy. However, the jury found otherwise.

In light of the jury’s verdict, judgment was entered in favor of the manufacturer.

The case is Toledo Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:02-cv-4373, June 11, 2009. The civil judgment and verdict slip appear at 2009-1 Trade Cases ¶76,660.