AbstractIn its landmark ruling in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the right to sue for private damages suffered from violations of section 4 of the Clayton Act to direct purchasers. Despite the fact that typically antitrust injury is, at least in part, passed on to firms lower in the production chain and ultimately to consumers, Illinois Brick has since stood as a binding legal constraint. This paper considers the strategic use that upstream firms can make of Illinoi Brick to shield themselves from private damages claims. In a repeated game setting, we find that Illinois Brick may facilitate upstream firms in engaging horizontally in an overt collusive arrangement, with concealed side-payments to their direct purchasers that discourage them from filing suit. An example is given of such an `Illinois Wall', in which downstream firms are given part of the upstream cartel profits through a symmetric rationing of their inputs at low prices. The Illinois Wall is found to be resilient to entry, imperfections of the legal system and leniency programs. In fact, the wall is particularly stable when competition is relatively strong at both the up- and the downstream level.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance in its series CeNDEF Working Papers with number 04-03.
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Dept. of Economics and Econometrics, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, NL - 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Phone: + 31 20 525 52 58
Fax: + 31 20 525 52 83
Web page: http://www.fee.uva.nl/cendef/
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra & Jakob Rüggeberg, 2005. "Illinois Walls," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 05-049/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Schinkel,Maarten Pieter & Rüggeberg,Jakob & Tuinstra,Jan, 2003. "Illinois Walls," Research Memoranda 027, Maastricht : METEOR, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization.
- D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing
- L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
- L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1990. "Are Treble Damages Neutral? Sequential Equilibrium and Private Antitrust Enforcement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 870-87, September.
- Snyder, Edward A, 1985. "Efficient Assignment of Rights to Sue for Antitrust Damages," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 469-82, May.
- Baker, Jonathan B, 1988. "Private Information and the Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Damage Remedies," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 385-408, Fall.
- Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland, 2012.
"The distribution of harm in price-fixing cases,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 265-276.
- Boone, J. & Müller, W., 2008. "The Distribution of Harm in Price-Fixing Cases," Discussion Paper 2008-68, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland, 2008. "The Distribution of Harm in Price-Fixing Cases," CEPR Discussion Papers 6949, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Boone, J. & Müller, W., 2008. "The Distribution of Harm in Price-Fixing Cases," Discussion Paper 2008-030, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Frank Verboven & Theon Van Dijk, 2007.
"Cartel damages claims and the passing-on defense,"
Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers
ces0715, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
- Verboven, Frank & Van Dijk, T, 2007. "Cartel damages claims and the passing-on defense," Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven urn:hdl:123456789/120450, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
- Van Dijk, Theon & Verboven, Frank, 2007. "Cartel Damages Claims and the Passing-on Defence," CEPR Discussion Papers 6329, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra & Jakob Rüggeberg, 2008.
"Illinois Walls: how barring indirect purchaser suits facilitates collusion,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 683-698.
- RÃ¼ggeberg, J. & Schinkel, M.P. & Tuinstra, J., 2005. "Illinois Walls: How barring indirect purchaser suits facilitates collusion," CeNDEF Working Papers 05-10, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Cees C.G. Diks).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.