Z Techs. Corp. v. Lubrizol Corp.

Lubrizol, a chemical manufacturer, produces petroleum wax-based oxidates, used in anti-corrosion products. In 2007, Lubrizol acquired Lockhart’s oxidate business and assets, leaving Lockhart’s Flint, Michigan oxidate production facility partially unused. The purchase agreement “prohibited Lockhart, for a period of five years from the date of the purchase agreement, from directly or indirectly engaging in any business competitive with the assets it sold to Lubrizol.” Lubrizol allegedly later employed the clause to prevent the use or re-lease of the plant to another oxidates manufacturer.” The purchase gave Lubrizol a 98% market share monopoly in the oxidate market. Lubrizol subsequently increased prices by 70%. In 2009, the FTC alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In a consent agreement, Lubrizol promised: to divest the Lockhart oxidates assets to Additives Int'l; to rescind any prohibition or restraint including noncompete agreements, on the sale or use of the Flint plant for the manufacture and sale of products by Additives or others; and to lease the Flint plant to Additives. Z Technologies, a purchaser of oxidates that makes anti-corrosion products for cars, filed suit in 2012, alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts and Michigan antitrust laws. The district court dismissed, determining that the claims were time-barred. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a continuing-violations argument. Lubrizol’s price increases and alleged implementation of the non-compete clause did not constitute a “new and independent” injury. The court also found a hold-and-use argument inapplicable because the alleged implementation of a non-compete clause was not a “new use” of an “asset.”View "Z Techs. Corp. v. Lubrizol Corp." on Justia Law