CASE COMMENTS: FOREIGN CASELAW – PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT – MONOPOLIZATION – ANTITRUST STANDING – ANTITRUST INJURY

United-States: The Third Circuit provides clarity to “Inextricably Intertwined” widening classes of plaintiffs to assert claims for antitrust injury (Hanover 3201 Realty / Village Supermarkets)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Can it constitute anti-competitive behaviour to undertake a series of administrative and legal steps to prevent the establishment of a shopping centre? Above all, is the operator in charge of building the complex the best person to take legal action? These are in substance the questions posed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a decision handed down on November 12, 2015 (Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC, Appellant v. Village Supermarkets, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, No. 14-4183, Nov. 12, 2015). In this case, Hanover Realty, a company specializing in real estate and the construction of commercial complexes, entered into a contract in

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

Quotation

Jean-Christophe Roda, United-States: The Third Circuit provides clarity to “Inextricably Intertwined” widening classes of plaintiffs to assert claims for antitrust injury (Hanover 3201 Realty / Village Supermarkets), 12 November 2015, Concurrences N° 1-2016, Art. N° 77953, pp. 228-230

Visites 189

All reviews