The US Supreme Court holds that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of an agreement does not suffice to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly)

INTRODUCTION On May 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision pertaining to the pleading standards in an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, No. 05‐1126, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 425 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005), and held in a 7‐2 decision that to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in a § 1 case, an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of an agreement will not suffice. The Court required “plausible grounds to infer an agreement” in violation of Section 1,

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

  • Paul Hastings (New York)
  • Paul Hastings (New York)
  • Seeger Weiss (New York)

Quotation

Kevin Logue, Barry Sher, Asa R. Danes, The US Supreme Court holds that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of an agreement does not suffice to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly), 21 May 2007, e-Competitions May 2007, Art. N° 74789

Visites 212

All issues

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