The US Supreme Court defines minimum pleading standard in antitrust class action (Bell Atlantic/Twombly)

In a 7-2 decision on May 21, 2007, the Supreme Court held that a complaint alleging antitrust conspiracy based on parallel conduct alone fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, No. 05-1126. Further, the Court held that a bare conspiracy allegation in the face of alleged parallel behavior is insufficient. Henceforth, a plaintiff will be required to plead facts that plausibly support an allegation of a conspiracy in such case. Perhaps more significantly, the Court also repudiated the famous, often-cited pleading standard of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), that a complaint should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if "it

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

Authors

  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Washington DC)
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Washington DC)
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (New York)

Quotation

Gary A. MacDonald, Steven C. Sunshine, Shepard Goldfein, The US Supreme Court defines minimum pleading standard in antitrust class action (Bell Atlantic/Twombly), 27 May 2007, e-Competitions Bulletin Burden of proof, Art. N° 45832

Visites 583

All issues

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