ARTICLE
23 April 2019

Competitor Communications Not Enough To Infer Antitrust Conspiracy

CG
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

Contributor

With a history of legal innovation dating back to the firm’s founding in 1919, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP is trusted by market-leading financial institutions, companies and their boards to manage significant litigation, regulatory matters and transactions. The firm is based in New York with offices in London and Washington, D.C.
Two federal appellate courts considered whether plaintiffs had garnered sufficient circumstantial evidence – including discussions among competitors – to present antitrust conspiracy claims to a jury.
United States Antitrust/Competition Law

Two federal appellate courts considered whether plaintiffs had garnered sufficient circumstantial evidence – including discussions among competitors – to present antitrust conspiracy claims to a jury.  In one case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for magazine publishers accused of orchestrating a group boycott in response to a wholesaler's announcement of new pricing terms.  In another case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for containerboard manufacturers alleged to have agreed to fix prices.  In both cases, the courts of appeals decided that despite the presence of frequent communications among rivals and some parallel conduct, there was not enough evidence of a conspiracy to proceed to trial.

Competitor Communications Not Enough to Infer Antitrust Conspiracy.pdf (pdf | 474.56 KB )

Source: The New York Law Journal. Reprinted with permission.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More