Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 15,400+ case briefs...

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
148 F.2d 416 (1945)


Facts

Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) (defendant) was the sole producer of virgin aluminum ingot in the United States, pursuant to two patents. Purchasers often distinguished between virgin ingot and secondary ingot, which was salvaged from ingot scrap. However, the price difference between the two was only between one and two cents per pound, and for many aluminum uses the two could be used interchangeably. As demand for aluminum ingot increased, Alcoa continually increased its production of virgin ingot to keep up with the demand. Aluminum Limited (Limited) (defendant) was a Canadian company formed in 1928 to take over Alcoa properties outside the United States. Limited was part of the "Alliance," which was a Swiss corporation created pursuant to an agreement between Limited and companies from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The Alliance members entered into agreements in 1931 and 1936 concerning aluminum manufacture and sale. The 1936 agreement set production quotas for each member that included aluminum imports into the United States. The United States Government (plaintiff) brought suit against Alcoa and Limited. The government alleged that Alcoa was monopolizing interstate and foreign commerce with respect to the manufacture and sale of aluminum ingot and that Alcoa and Limited had illegally conspired to form a monopoly and restrain domestic and foreign commerce regarding the manufacture and sale of aluminum ingot. After a trial, the district court dismissed the complaint. Among other conclusions, the district court calculated Alcoa’s market share at 33 percent by including secondary ingot in its market definition. If the market were restricted to virgin ingot, Alcoa possessed roughly 90 percent of the market share. The district court also excluded the ingot that Alcoa produced and fabricated itself. The district court also found that the Alliance's 1936 agreement did not materially affect U.S. commerce or trade because the amount of ingot imported in 1936 and 1937 was higher than in previous years. The United States appealed. The appeal was referred to the court of appeals because the United States Supreme Court was unable to attain a quorum of six justices required to hear the case. Among other issues on appeal, the appellate court considered whether Alcoa had a monopoly on the market for virgin aluminum ingot in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act and whether the Alliance's 1936 agreement between Limited and the other foreign producers constituted an unlawful conspiracy under § 1 of the Sherman Act.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (L. Hand, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 321,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 15,400 briefs, keyed to 210 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.