A US District Court rules that it could assume the umbrella theory of antitrust injury is viable for the purposes of determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction (Boardman / Pacific Seafood)

KEYWORDS
Reference

US District Court for the District of Oregon, Jeff Boardman et al. / Pacific Seafood Group et al., 1:15-108-CL, 6 March 2015

Oregon Federal Court Weighs In on Disputed Umbrella Theory of Damages* An Oregon federal court recently relied on the so-called umbrella theory of damages to decide that the plaintiffs had an antitrust injury necessary to pursue an injunction. While this decision has garnered attention for enjoining the defendants from completing an acquisition, it also is noteworthy for its reliance on the disputed umbrella theory of damages. This theory generally refers to antitrust damages that may result when

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

  • BakerHostetler (Washington)
    United States 2 contributions 306 visits

Quotation

Danyll W. Foix, A US District Court rules that it could assume the umbrella theory of antitrust injury is viable for the purposes of determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction (Boardman / Pacific Seafood), 6 March 2015, e-Competitions US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 72560

Visites 163

All issues

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