The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rules that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defense to allegations that immunity had been forfeited by the inclusion of non-producer members (Mushroom Direct Purchaser)

Agricultural Cooperative Antitrust Litigation Continues to Mushroom* Pennsylvania District Court certifies five year ruling for interlocutory appeal, that mushroom cooperative is not immune from antitrust claims based upon “advice of counsel” argument. In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00620, (E.D. Pa. October 17, 2014.) The multidistrict litigation over alleged price fixing in the mushroom market is one of many antitrust class actions pending against cooperatives in various agricultural industries throughout the United States. These include In Re Fresh & Processed Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, (MDL No. 2186 D. Idaho) and In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002 (E.D. Pa.) These cases involve the scope of immunity for

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Don T. Hibner, Jr., The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rules that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defense to allegations that immunity had been forfeited by the inclusion of non-producer members (Mushroom Direct Purchaser), 14 October 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin October 2014, Art. N° 70355

Visites 57

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues