Ruling in Guardian suit supports predatory pricing law
Ralph Alldredge, the Guardian's lead trial and appellate attorney, noted that "this is the most direct attack upon the viability of the UPA since its constitutionality was challenged unsuccessfully in the 1940s. By rejecting it, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the UPA cannot be subverted by importing federal standards which have made below cost pricing claims impossible to win in federal court."
He added: "Think of what that means for big-box retailers, which have used below-cost selling on some products to attract customers away from small, independently owned grocery, hardware, drug, and department stores."
The Weekly has an entire section of its website devoted to the lawsuit, which it calls "stupid" and "absurd." The trial, the Weekly argues, was "marred by judicial error and emotional anti-chain arguments." At one point, the paper even argued that the Guardian was delaying its response to the New Times appeal briefs because we feared losing the appeal.
But as of press time, the Weekly had not published a word on the Appeals Court ruling. It's the first time anything has happened in the case that the Weekly hasn't covered. I e-mailed Van De Voorde to ask for comment, but he hasn't gotten back to me.
PS The Guardian's legal team, which did a stunning job at every level, consisted of Richard Hill, E. Craig Moody, and Ralph Alldredge at the trial level, assisted by Joseph Hearst in the appeal and by Jay Adkisson and Travis Farnsworth on the collection efforts.