In its recent decision in Valspar Corp. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., the Third Circuit raised the bar for plaintiffs opposing summary judgment in antitrust cases by setting a “more likely than not” standard to evaluate circumstantial evidence—a standard the dissent called an “unworkable burden” for plaintiffs. [1] Several years ago, a class of titanium dioxide [2] purchasers filed a price-fixing action against suppliers in the Maryland District Court. Valspar a purchaser, opted out of the class, bringing its own suit in the Delaware District Court. While the class case survived summary judgment, [3] when defendant-supplier DuPont filed for summary judgment against Valspar, the Delaware District Court granted DuPont’s motion despite being presented with “substantially the same
Share on
|
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit raises the bar for plaintiffs for a price-fixing action by setting a “more likely than not” standard to evaluate circumstantial evidence (Valspar / DuPont de Nemours)
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.
