DISCUSSION QUESTIONS32–6 Price Discrimination. Dayton Superior Corp. sells its products in interstate commerce to several companies, includingSpa Steel Products, Inc. The purchasers often compete directly with each other for customers. From 2005 to 2007, one of SpaSteel’s customers purchased Dayton Superior’s products from two of Spa Steel’s competitors. According to the customer, SpaSteel’s prices were always 10 to 15 percent higher even though they were for the same products. As a result, Spa Steel lost sales to at least that customer and perhaps others. Spa Steel wants to sue Dayton Superior for price discrimination. Which requirements for such a claim under Section 2 of the Clayton Act does Spa Steel satisfy? What additional facts will it need to prove? [Dayton Superior Corp. v. Spa Steel Products, Inc., 2012 WL 113663 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)] (See page 845.)33–1 Environmental Laws. Fruitade, Inc., is a processor of a soft drink called Freshen Up. Fruitade uses returnable bottles, which it cleans with a special acid to allow for further beverage processing. The acid is diluted with water and then allowed to pass into a navigable stream. Fruitade crushes its broken bottles and throws the crushed glass into the stream. Discuss fully any environmental laws that Fruitade has violated.(See pages 871–874.)34–4 Accountant’s Liability for Audit. A West Virginia bank ran its asset value from $100 million to $1 billion over seven years by aggressively marketing subprime loans. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a federal regulator, audited the bank and discovered that the books had been falsified for several years and that the bank was insolvent. The Comptroller closed the bank and brought criminal charges against its managers. The Comptroller fined Grant Thornton, LLP, the bank’s accounting firm, $300,000 for recklessly failing to meet generally accepted auditing standards during the years it audited the bank. The Comptroller claimed Thornton violated federal law by “participating in . . . unsafe and unsound banking practice.” Thornton appealed, contending that it was not involved in bank operations to that extent based on its audit function. What would be the key to determining if the accounting firm could be held liable for that violation of federal law? [Grant Thornton, LLP v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 514 F.3d 1328 (D.C.Cir. 2008)] (See page 895.)