Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
Consumers with telephone and internet subscriptions brought an antitrust claim against local telephone companies, alleging that the companies had arranged not to compete with each other and had attempted to exclude potential competitors in a way that gave them a monopoly over the market.
1 Οκτ 2015 · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. William Twombly, et al. Opinion of the Court (May 21, 2007) Brief of United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners (August 25, 2006)
Twombly,2 decided May 21, 2007, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,3 decided May 18, 2009, strengthened the Court‟s interpretation of the pleading requirements in Rule 8(a)(2) for stating a claim in antitrust and other federal civil cases. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to set forth “a short and
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”
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.
confirmed Twombly’s broad applicability, Twombly’s plausibility standard was fashioned in the context of an antitrust case and remains particularly vital to antitrust defendants. Now, more than ever, when companies are struggling to survive and courts are inundated with lawsuits, the policy justifications for Twombly’s
While Twombly is unlikely to chill private antitrust enforcement, it should have a positive effect that benefits both plaintiffs and defendants, not to mention courts.
