Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Lourdes F. Materne and Part-time Associate Justice Alex R. Munson affirmed the trial court’s decision, which granted summary judgment against Shell Company (Pacific Islands Ltd.).
The Justices in their opinion order said that U Corp. lacked standing to assert a price-fixing claim, and their argument failed on the Foreign Investment Act claims.Three individual Shell Dealers and U Corporation, a corporation selling Mobil petroleum filed a suit against Shell alleging that Shell Company was acting outside the scope of its business permit issued by the Foreign Investment Board and that Shell Company engaged in Unfair Business Practices.The Shell Dealers later dismissed their claims with prejudice against Shell Company, leaving only U Corp to pursue the lawsuit.U Corp and Shell Company filed cross motions for summary judgment that was decided by the trial court later.The trial court ruled in favor of the Shell Company and dismissed two of the U Corp.’s claims against Shell Company.U Corp. challenged the ruling and argued that Shell’s business permit does not allow it to make direct sales to end-users.The U Corp. further argued that the trial court’s ruling ignored the Foreign Investment Board’s legal opinion that Shell was not allowed to sell petroleum directly to end-users and dismissal of the price fixing claims was error when Shell was setting the retail price of gas for its Shell Card customers.The Supreme Court in affirming the trial court’s decision said that Shell’s distribution of petroleum to Shell Card customers is within the scope of its business permit.The Supreme Court said that U Corp.’s argument that ‘the authority to interpret Shell’s business permit lies with the Foreign Investment Board and that the 2000 letter is evidence that Shell exceeded the scope of its business permits’ is rejected.The Supreme Court said the FIB Board took no further action on the letter and renewed the permit in 2005, and there is no reason to believe that the Board was of the same opinion regarding Shell’s business practices as its former legal counsel.The Supreme Court said U Corp. lacked antitrust standing in their price-fixing claim against Shell Company.“Even if a plaintiff can prove a violation of §102(d), antitrust injury does not arise.”“A firm complaining about the harm it suffers from nonpredatory price competition is really claiming that it is unable to raise prices. This is not antitrust injury; indeed cutting prices in order to increase business is the very essence of competition,” the Justices said in affirming the trial court’s ruling.
