The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clarifies in a passing on case between two healthcare providers the issues of whether and when a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the distributor and manufacturer (Marion Healthcare / Becton Dickinson)

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. [1] 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. [2] While the lower courts that have addressed

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

Citation

Jeanette Bayoumi, The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clarifies in a passing on case between two healthcare providers the issues of whether and when a consumer who purchases from a distributor may hold a manufacturer liable for overcharges resulting from a conspiracy between the distributor and manufacturer (Marion Healthcare / Becton Dickinson), 5 mars 2020, e-Competitions March 2020, Art. N° 95223

Visites 123

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues