The wise thing for me to say . . . is that I don't have evidence to contradict it.
David Ingram, "Q&A: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Barry Barnett on the Comcast class action", Thomson Reuters News & Insight, May 13, 2013 (referring to "the academic study spotlighted in The New York Times that found
At the end of the one of the Best Movies Ever, Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) drives with her young daughter towards safety down a Los Angeles street. Will they escape? Yes, we think they just might!
A Los Angeles police lieutenant (Perry Lopez) steps onto the pavement. He aims his pistol and fires. Mulwray's car
NYU Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein — "an advocate of minimal legal regulation" and "one of the most influential legal thinkers of modern times" — thinks the U.S. Supreme Court got its ruling wrong in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2013) (post here).
Leaving to one side the
We've known at least since Bell Atl. Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), that competitors can engage in parallel conduct — charging the same price, offering the same product features, setting identical contract terms — without running afoul of the Sherman Act. A plaintiff claiming a violation of section 1, which bars conspiracies
Blawgletter has noted concerns about awarding money from class action judgments and settlements to non-class members by way of "cy pres" awards. See "Does Cy Pres Have a Prayer?". These payments aim to do the next best thing to paying the funds to the members of the class.
Such efforts become necessary fairly
A "substate" governmental entity that engages in conduct that would usually violate the Sherman Act may escape liablity under the state-action doctrine if the "state" directs "substate" to do the anticompetitive deeds. But the state must "'clearly articulate[] and affirmatively express[]' state policy to displace competition." Fed'l Trade Comm'n v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., No. 11-1160, slip
Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner today upheld (with help of course) a ruling against a plaintiff class that accused a pair of firms from the Great White North of scheming with U.S. outfits to raise the price of sulfuric acid, a by-product for the Canadians of smelting non-ferrous metals like nickel and copper.
The
Today the Supreme Court granted review in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, No. 12-416 (U.S.), an antitrust case that presents the question of whether section 1 of the Sherman Act bars Competitor A from paying Competitor B to delay rolling out a generic drug that vies for sales with Competitor A's brand-name drug. Posts
Blawgletter had the pleasure today of standing before the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. We urged their honors to send a case we've worked on for more than nine years back to the trial court . . . for trial.
We had not done that before
The Federal Aviation Act pre-empts state laws that "relate[] to a price, route, or service of an air carrier." The statute thus bars state law price-fixing claims against your American Airlineses, your U.S. Airwayses, your Virgin Americas, and — yes — even your Air Gumbos and your go!s.
But what about our foreign flying friends at