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 allegations that immunity had been forfeited by the inclusion of non-producer members (Mushroom Direct Purchaser)

Agricultural Cooperative Antitrust Litigation Continues to Mushroom* Pennsylvania District Court certifies five year ruling for interlocutory appeal, that mushroom cooperative is not immune from antitrust claims based upon “advice of counsel” argument. In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00620, (E.D. Pa. October 17, 2014.) The multidistrict litigation over alleged price fixing in the mushroom market is one of many antitrust class actions pending against cooperatives in various agricultural industries throughout the United States. These include In Re Fresh & Processed Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, (MDL No. 2186 D. Idaho) and In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002 (E.D. Pa.) These cases involve the scope of immunity for

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

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Citation

Don T. Hibner, 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 allegations that immunity had been forfeited by the inclusion of non-producer members (Mushroom Direct Purchaser), 14 octobre 2014, e-Competitions Due Process Research Program, Art. N° 70355

Visites 122

Tous les numéros

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