The Kansas Supreme Court holds that resale price maintenance, whether purely vertical or in a dual distribution setting, is per se illegal and rejects applicability of federal rule of reason analysis to claims brought under Kansas antitrust law (O’Brien / Leegin Creative Leather Products)

UPDATE NOTE: On April 16, 2013, the Kansas legislature reversed the decision discussed below, and adopted a "reasonableness" standard for analyzing vertical price agreements. On May 4, 2012, Kansas joined the growing trend among states to limit the distribution flexibility that had been anticipated would flow from the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007). In a far reaching and potentially disruptive opinion, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas in O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., No. 101,000 (May 4, 2012) held that vertical resale price

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

  • Crowell & Moring (Washington)
  • Crowell & Moring (Irvine)
  • Crowell & Moring (Washington)
  • Crowell & Moring (Irvine)

Quotation

Robert A. Lipstein, Daniel A. SASSE, Ryan C. Tisch, Chahira Solh, The Kansas Supreme Court holds that resale price maintenance, whether purely vertical or in a dual distribution setting, is per se illegal and rejects applicability of federal rule of reason analysis to claims brought under Kansas antitrust law (O’Brien / Leegin Creative Leather Products), 4 May 2012, e-Competitions Bulletin Judicial review, Art. N° 52950

Visites 168

All issues

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