Category Archives: Standard for Alleging Conspiracy

Drug Wholesalers Claim Dismissed for Lack of Evidence of Market Power or Conspiracy

Update August 2010: The Second Circuit has affirmed this decision. In RxUSA Wholesale Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories Inc. et al., Eastern District of New York Judge Denis R. Hurley has dismissed a $2.3 billion antitrust lawsuit accusing 16 pharmaceutical manufacturers and a group of drug distributors of conspiring to keep RxUSA Wholesale Inc., a secondary […]

Blood Reagent Price-Fixing MDL Moves Forward

E.D. PA Judge Jan Dubois denied defendant Immucor Inc. & Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Inc. motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege an agreement.  The judge cited the close timing of the defenants’ price increases for blood reagent; their cancellations of contracts with group purchasers; and […]

Insurance Conspiracy Case Partially Dismissed

The Third Circuit dismissed a major portion of the Insurance Brokers’ Antitrust Litigationon the ground that the complaint fails to adequately allege an a horizontal agreement among insurers.  Although the plaintiffs alleged agreements between particular insurers and brokers, the insurers had sufficient incentive to enter those vertical agreements even if the insurers had not agreed […]

Magazine Distribution Boycott Case Dismissed

Southern District of NY Judge Paul Crotty dismissed a suit filed by bankrupt magazine wholesaler Anderson News against magazine publishers, including Time, Rodale, and American Media.  The case arose out of a decision by Anderson to impose a 7% surcharge on magazines to discourage suppliers from shipping excess copies.  Rather than accept the surcharge, a […]

Nurses’ Salary Class Action to Move Forward

Northern District of NY Judge Thomas McAvoy denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the allegationsof information exchanges and surpressed wages was sufficient to permit a jury to find both collusive activity and actual anticompetitive effects.  The court also denied the one unionized hospital’s motion to dismiss on non-statutory labor […]

Court Dismiss Complaint in LCD Panel Price Fixing Case

Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston dismissed AT&T’s claims against various LCD display manufacturers, rejecting the plaintiff’s theory that evidence sufficient to establish a conspiracy to fix prices on one type of LCD display was sufficient to permit an inference of price fixing with respect to other types of displays.  The court dismissed the […]

Honeywell Alarm Price Fixing Case Dismissed

Judge Robert Patterson, Southern District of New York, dismissed without prejudice Integrated Systems complaint alleging that Honeywell had orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy among retailers and terminated the plaintiff’s dealership when it refused to go along.  The court held that allegations of complaints by competing dealers were insufficient to properly allege a conspiracy and that the […]

No Price Fixing Conspiracy in Text Message Price Fixing Case

Update May 2010:  The court has held that the plaintiffs more detailed amended complaint property alleges a conspiracy.  The amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the Wireless Internet Caucus to facilitate price fixing agreements with respect to text messages, including specific dates and executives who attended the meetings.  Although the defendants argued that the […]

Plywood Price Fixing Conspiracy Case to Proceed

Southern District of Mississippi Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., has refused to dismiss price fixing claims against major plywood producers Georgia-Pacific, Weyerhaeuser, and Louisiana Pacific with respect to purchases of (1) plywood made after November 2004 and (2) OSB.  Claims based on earlier plywood purchases were deemed barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations.  […]

Drug Retailers Allege Conspiracy to Block Generic Provigil

Update March 2011:  The court granted plaintiff Apotex’s motion for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement on one of the two patents-in-suit despite the defendant’s admisison of non-infringement.  The court commented that a ruling on both patents-in-suit was required to trigger the 180 day exclusivity period under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Update Spring 2010:  E.D. PA Judge […]