A federal court order blocking Pacific Seafood Group from purchasing Ocean Gold Seafoods will remain until a trial into whether the sale would create a monopoly.
Commercial fishermen won a preliminary injunction against the sale last year in U.S. District Court in Medford. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order Tuesday.
The fishermen allege that Pacific Seafood’s acquisition of Ocean Gold, a large fish processor in Westport, Washington, would establish a monopoly in the groundfish, whiting and coldwater shrimp markets.
Pacific Seafood, a Clackamas-based company that is a dominant player in fish processing and distribution, announced after a legal setback last year that the deal for Ocean Gold was canceled.
But the company, led by Frank Dulcich, wanted the court to compel arbitration as part of a previous antitrust suit by fishermen that was settled. The district court declined, a decision also upheld by the appeals court.
Judge A. Wallace Tashima found that the fishermen — including Dennis Rankin of Astoria — showed a sufficient likelihood of success in their legal challenge and demonstrated the potential for irreparable harm from the sale.
The Oregon Attorney General’s Office has called the potential merger of Pacific Seafood and Ocean Gold “presumptively unlawful given the degree of market concentration.”
“The decision this week was about where the dispute would be heard,” said Daniel Occhipinti, Pacific Seafood’s general counsel and director of government affairs. “We’re disappointed with the ruling but we continue to maintain that the plaintiffs’ claims are meritless, and we will prove that in whatever forum we have to.”
Full Content: The Daily Astorian
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh