The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit potentially widens the opening for additional classes of plaintiffs to assert claims for antitrust injury (Hanover 3201 Realty / Village Supermarkets)

Third Circuit Provides Clarity to “Inextricably Intertwined” Basis of Antitrust Injury in Partially Reinstating Claims Against ShopRite* On November 12, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion partially reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims in Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., finding that plaintiff Hanover Realty had successfully pleaded antitrust standing with regard to certain of its claims. The Third Circuit clarified—and potentially expanded the scope of—its prior interpretations of the Supreme Court’s seminal standing decision in Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982), which held that a plaintiff did not necessarily need to be a consumer or a competitor of a defendant to establish antitrust injury, if it could show

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

  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)

Quotation

Robert P. LoBue, Jonathan H. Hatch, The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit potentially widens the opening for additional classes of plaintiffs to assert claims for antitrust injury (Hanover 3201 Realty / Village Supermarkets), 12 November 2015, e-Competitions Burden of proof, Art. N° 76720

Visites 66

All issues

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