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