The US Supreme Court holds that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of an agreement does not suffice to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly)

INTRODUCTION On May 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision pertaining to the pleading standards in an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, No. 05‐1126, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 425 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005), and held in a 7‐2 decision that to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in a § 1 case, an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of an agreement will not suffice. The Court required “plausible grounds to infer an agreement” in violation of Section 1,

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

Auteurs

  • Paul Hastings (New York)
  • Paul Hastings (New York)
  • Seeger Weiss (New York)

Citation

Kevin Logue, Barry Sher, Asa R. Danes, The US Supreme Court holds that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of an agreement does not suffice to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly), 21 mai 2007, e-Competitions May 2007, Art. N° 74789

Visites 212

Tous les numéros

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