Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
ago in Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court injected a “plausibility” standard into Rule 12(b)(6) practice and held that a plausible antitrust conspiracy claim must be based on more than just parallel conduct by the alleged conspirators.[1]
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1961. Court’s precedent interpreting Rule 8, the Court engaged in an ad hoc cost-benefit analysis.
The Twombly opinion put a greater burden on plaintiffs bringing antitrust claims to ensure that facts are included in the complaint that make the alleged conduct “plausible”
summary judgment. Provided that some set of facts could support the relief sought, including those residing solely within the imagination of the presiding judge, a complaint setting forth conclusory allegations that mentioned all the necessary elements of the claim was not subject to dismissal.
Beyond simply raising the bar on a particular type of antitrust claim under Section 1, Twombly undoubtedly will be used by defendants in many non-antitrust cases to challenge the suficiency of pleadings under the Federal Rules.
In short, the Twombly plaintiffs asserted a classic hard-core cartel: a horizontal agreement between competitors to restrict competition; they just did not allege “enough facts” to support a plausible inference the cartel existed. Twombly Will Not Chill Private Antitrust Enforcement
Reversing the Second Circuit, the Court held that an antitrust complaint that alleged mere parallel behavior among rival telecommunications companies, coupled with stray averments of agreement that amounted merely to legal conclusions, failed as a matter of law to state a claim for conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and had been p...
