The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clarifies in a passing on case between two healthcare providers the issues of whether and when a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the distributor and manufacturer (Marion Healthcare / Becton Dickinson)

Introduction In its recent decision in Marion Healthcare, LLC v. Becton Dickinson & Co., the Seventh Circuit added to the discussion among circuit courts as to whether and when a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the manufacturer and the distributor. [1] This scenario has often been referred to as the “co-conspirator exception” to Illinois Brick, and is based on the seminal Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois decision, in which the Supreme Court held that an indirect purchaser generally does not have antitrust standing to recover damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act in a case involving the “passing on” of damages suffered by a direct purchaser. [2] While the lower courts that have addressed

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

Jeanette Bayoumi, The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clarifies in a passing on case between two healthcare providers the issues of whether and when a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the distributor and manufacturer (Marion Healthcare / Becton Dickinson), 5 March 2020, e-Competitions March 2020, Art. N° 95223

Visites 45

All issues

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