The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rules that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defence to the antitrust laws (Mushroom Direct Purchaser)

Mushroom Court Ruling Sprouts Controversy on Whether Reliance on Lawyer Advice Maintains Affirmative Defense to Antitrust Claims* A federal district court recently ruled that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defense to the antitrust laws – a result that may soon collide with rulings by other courts considering the same issue. Several years ago, a Pennsylvania mushroom cooperative, its members, and various other entities, were sued for allegedly violating Sherman Act § 1 by launching a “supply control” campaign that used member funds to acquire and then dismantle other mushroom

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

  • BakerHostetler (Washington)

Citation

Danyll W. Foix, The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rules that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defence to the antitrust laws (Mushroom Direct Purchaser), 14 octobre 2014, e-Competitions Due Process Research Program, Art. N° 70354

Visites 120

Tous les numéros

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