Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
The Ninth Circuit has held that a putative class of nationwide consumers that brought damages claims under California law was erroneously certified. Until now, class actions asserting claims for plaintiffs across the country...more
The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more
Interpreting Bristol-Myers : Are Unnamed Members of Nationwide Class Actions ‘Parties’? If So, When? In 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS), holding that a...more
On July 23, 2020, Judge Paul A. Englemayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to certify a proposed class of direct purchasers of aluminum in a decision that may signal a trend...more
On July 8, 2020, Judge Alison Burroughs granted-in-part Defendants Shire and Actavis’s motion to decertify a direct purchaser plaintiff class in an alleged reverse payment antitrust case pending in the Federal District Court...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently concluded in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation that a district court’s reliance on average prices to determine class-wide impact was insufficient....more
On April 22, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded an order certifying a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, holding that the district court...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently issued an important decision regarding who may sue to recover damages for purchasing goods at a higher price due to cartel or monopoly overcharges. The case, Marion...more
The Third Circuit recently held in In re Remicade (Direct Purchaser) Antitrust Litigation that a direct purchaser’s antitrust suit alleging overpayment for a drug purchased pursuant to a distribution agreement with a...more
The EC published guidelines for national courts to estimate the share of overcharge that is passed on. These non-binding guidelines explain the factors impacting the existence and magnitude of passing-on effects and methods...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more
As part of our periodic updates, here is an overview of recent developments of relevance to participants in the real estate finance market across certain key jurisdictions in Europe....more
In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more
In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more
In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple. Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more
In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more
• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more
The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more
Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the views of the U.S. Solicitor General, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and the Federal Trade Commission when it kept alive a putative class...more
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more