opinion and dissent in Tam Travel v. Delta Airlines encapsulate a divergence of
opinion that has emerged over the application of Twombly. Comparing the
majority's and dissent's analysis in Tam Travel suggests that the difference of
opinion may be attributable to factors other than a clear reading of Twombly.
This Commentary is excerpted from LexisNexis' quarterly antitrust publication
the Antitrust Report.
NOTE: The statute link below may be
accessed by lexis.com subscribers.
Non-subscribers may obtain research packages by the day, week, or month at lexisONE
On April 9,
2003 Tam Travel, Inc. and forty-eight other travel agencies ("Plaintiffs")
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, alleging that Air Canada, Alaska Airlines ("Alaska"), Alaska Air
Group, ATA Airlines ("ATA"), American Airlines ("American"), America West
Airlines ("AWA"), Continental Airlines ("Continental"), Delta Air Lines
("Delta"), Hawaiian Airlines ("Hawaiian"), Horizon Air Industries ("Horizon"),
Frontier Airlines ("Frontier"), KLM Royal Dutch Airlines ("KLM"), Northwest
Airlines ("Northwest"), United Airlines ("United"), US Airways, and US Airways
Group ("Defendants") illegally agreed to cap, cut, and ultimately eliminate
base commissions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1 ("Section 1").
* * *
Richard A. Griffin, joined by Judge Danny J. Boggs, delivered the majority
opinion, affirming the district court's dismissal of the case for failure to
state a claim under Section 1.
The Sixth Circuit first addressed the issue of whether United's emergence from
bankruptcy discharged Plaintiffs' Section 1 claims against United. As
Plaintiffs alleged that United made its last commission cut in March 2002, the
Sixth Circuit held Plaintiffs' claims against United qualified as discharged
debt under the Bankruptcy Code. Further, except for making a factually
incorrect assertion that the airlines emerged from bankruptcy before
Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, Plaintiffs failed to challenge the district
court's ruling on the issue. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit found that
Plaintiffs waived the argument.
The Sixth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' argument that United was guilty of a
"continuing violation" by rejoining the alleged conspiracy by utilizing the 0
percent "conspiracy commission rate" after emerging from bankruptcy. The Sixth
Circuit found that although a successfully reorganized debtor under Chapter 11
is liable for independent conduct that arises after confirmation of its
bankruptcy plan, United's post-2006, 0 percent base commission rate did not qualify
as an overt act-and it is the overt act itself that determines the timing of an
injury, not the effects of the overt act. Accordingly, the court held
that United's alleged overt act to effectuate the conspiracy occurred in 2002,
prior to United's emergence from bankruptcy in 2006.
Access the full version of "Tam Travel v. Delta
Airlines" with your lexis.com ID
If you do not have a lexis.com ID,
you can purchase the Emerging Issues Analysis content through our lexisONE Research Packages