We specialize in hard to find items
All Categories
*Price and Stocks may change without prior notice
*Packaging of actual item may differ from photo shown
- Electrical items MAY be 110 volts.
- 7 Day Return Policy
- All products are genuine and original
About Antitrust
Product description THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, discuss and interpret antitrust doctrine. The selection of decisions spans from 2013 to the date of publication. An antitrust plaintiff must show both constitutional standing and antitrust standing at the pleading stage. "Harm to the antitrust plaintiff is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional standing requirement of injury in fact, but the court must make a further determination whether the plaintiff is a proper party to bring a private antitrust action." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters ("AGC"), 459 U.S. 519, 535 n.31, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983). "[A]ntitrust standing is a threshold, pleading-stage inquiry and when a complaint by its terms fails to establish this requirement we must dismiss it as a matter of law." Gatt Commc'ns, Inc. v. PMC Assocs., L.L.C., 711 F.3d 68, 75 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The limitation of antitrust standing to "a proper party" arose because "[a]ntitrust law has long recognized that defendants who may have violated a provision of the antitrust statutes are not liable to every person who can persuade a jury that he suffered a loss in some manner 'that might conceivably be traced' to the conduct of the defendants." Reading Indus., Inc. v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 631 F.2d 10, 12 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). To satisfy the antitrust standing requirement, a private antitrust plaintiff must plausibly allege that (i) it suffered an antitrust injury and (ii) it is an acceptable plaintiff to pursue the alleged antitrust violations. See Gatt Commc'ns, 711 F.3d at 76. In order to establish antitrust injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate that its injury is "of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful." Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977). Even a plaintiff that has suffered an antitrust injury must also demonstrate that it is a suitable plaintiff, i.e., an "efficient enforcer" of the antitrust laws. Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408, 438 (2d Cir. 2005). In Re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, 833 F. 3d 151 (2nd Cir. 2016).
