The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California finds sufficient ground for a claim of alleged illegal secret rebates, kickbacks and commissions in the market for the sale of title insurance, but rejects a claim of collusive conduct (California Title Insurance)

Strike Three: Plaintiffs Again Fail to Allege Facts of Collusion in Oligopoly Market* Rather than being "plus factors," allegations of interdependent industry structure simply demonstrate that the challenged conduct of defendant title insurers was as consistent with competition as with collusion. In re California Title Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103407 (N.D. Cal., November 6, 2009). Plaintiffs brought an action against major title insurers and their subsidiaries for engaging in conduct that allegedly violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16720 of the California Business and Professions Code, and Section 17200 of the California Unfair Competition Provision in the Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to

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

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Jr. Don T. Hibner, The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California finds sufficient ground for a claim of alleged illegal secret rebates, kickbacks and commissions in the market for the sale of title insurance, but rejects a claim of collusive conduct (California Title Insurance), 6 November 2009, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 67023

Visites 87

All issues

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