Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd., 833 F.3d 680

Energy Conversion Devices (plaintiff) made thin-film solar panels; Suntech, Trina, and Yingli (defendants) made polysilicon panels and allegedly agreed to export and sell below cost in the U.S., supported by suppliers, a trade association, and Chinese financing.
Between 2008–2011 defendants’ average selling prices fell over 60%; many U.S. solar manufacturers, including Energy Conversion, later filed for bankruptcy or closed.
Energy Conversion sued under § 1 of the Sherman Act and Michigan law seeking treble damages, alleging a conspiracy to sell at below-cost prices to destroy U.S. competition.
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to plead that defendants had a reasonable prospect of recouping losses (an essential element of predatory-pricing claims), and denied leave to amend.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that predatory-pricing claims under § 1 require both below-cost pricing and a plausible recoupment allegation, and that Energy Conversion also failed to plead cognizable antitrust injury (no showing prices would rise later).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 1 predatory-pricing claim requires pleading recoupment	§1 claims need only allege below-cost price-fixing; recoupment is a §2 requirement	§1 predatory-pricing claims require both below-cost pricing and a reasonable prospect of recoupment	Court: §1 claims require both elements; dismissal affirmed
Whether plaintiff pleaded antitrust injury despite low prices	Low prices harmed U.S. industry and reduced choice/innovation; that is antitrust injury	Low aggregate price effects benefit consumers; without recoupment there is no antitrust injury	Court: No cognizable antitrust injury absent plausible recoupment allegation
Whether dismissal should have been without prejudice and leave to amend allowed	Plaintiff sought to amend post-dismissal to add recoupment allegation	Defendants: amendment came too late; plaintiff had prior notice and opportunities	Court: Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; dismissal with prejudice appropriate
Whether plaintiff could rely on alternative theories (e.g., non-market actors) to avoid recoupment requirement	Alleged defendants (Chinese firms) may price below cost for non-profit/political reasons, so recoupment need not be alleged	That scenario does not substitute for recoupment; charity or state-supported low pricing is not anticompetitive recoupment	Court: Non-reciprocal low pricing without recoupment is not actionable under antitrust law

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court) (antitrust protects competition, not competitors)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court) (discusses predatory-pricing implausibility and recoupment necessity)
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court) (below-cost pricing and reasonable prospect of recoupment are elements of predatory-pricing §2 claim)
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court) (description of predatory-pricing dynamics)
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (Supreme Court) (antitrust injury requires predatory pricing to show harm from low prices)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court) (plausibility standard for pleading conspiracies)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court) (plausibility pleading standard)
NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442 (6th Cir.) (antitrust injury and recoupment in low-price §2 claims)
Superior Production Partnership v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., 784 F.3d 311 (6th Cir.) (inferring recoupment element for §1 predatory-pricing claims)