In 2007, the Supreme Court overturned a nearly century-old precedent, holding that resale price maintenance (RPM) plans were no longer per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and instead must be analyzed under the Rule of Reason.1 Since Leegin, there has been much speculation about how RPM would now be treated by the courts, as well as attempts to overturn the decision legislatively. We now have a concrete example of the difference between per se and Rule of Reason on RPM issues—and it involves the continued saga of the Leegin case.
Please see full alert below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Antitrust & Trade Regulation Updates, Civil Procedure Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Mintz Levin - Antitrust | Attorney Advertising