Introduction In its recent decision in Marion Healthcare, LLC v. Becton Dickinson & Co., the Seventh Circuit added to the discussion among circuit courts as to whether and when a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the manufacturer and the distributor.  This scenario has often been referred to as the “co-conspirator exception” to Illinois Brick, and is based on the seminal Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois decision, in which the Supreme Court held that an indirect purchaser generally does not have antitrust standing to recover damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act in a case involving the “passing on” of damages suffered by a direct purchaser.  While the lower courts that have addressed
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clarifies whether a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the distributor and manufacturer in the passing on of a case between two healthcare providers (Marion Healthcare / Becton Dickinson & Company)
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.