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 the antitrust laws (Mushroom Direct Purchaser)

Mushroom Court Ruling Sprouts Controversy on Whether Reliance on Lawyer Advice Maintains Affirmative Defense to Antitrust Claims* A federal district court recently ruled that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defense to the antitrust laws – a result that may soon collide with rulings by other courts considering the same issue. Several years ago, a Pennsylvania mushroom cooperative, its members, and various other entities, were sued for allegedly violating Sherman Act § 1 by launching a “supply control” campaign that used member funds to acquire and then dismantle other mushroom

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

  • BakerHostetler (Washington)

Quotation

Danyll W. Foix, 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 the antitrust laws (Mushroom Direct Purchaser), 14 October 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin Burden of proof, Art. N° 70354

Visites 57

All issues

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