An appellate decision has to be really, really wrong before the same Court will decide that it shouldn’t be treated as the "law of the case." In fact, the wrongness has to be as overpowering as a very old and very dead fish, per the Fourth Circuit’s opinion today in TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot.
Fourth Circuit Rules No Vertical Price Fixing In Manufacturers’ Sale Of Pesticide
The Fourth Circuit held today that the manner in which manufacturers of pest control products sold their products to consumers did not constitute illegal resale price maintenance. The decision in Valupest.com of Charlotte, Inc. v. Bayer Corp. rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that an antitrust stalwart, United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926)
North Carolina Court Of Appeals Reinstates Antitrust Class Action
The courthouse door in North Carolina is now wide open to antitrust plaintiffs making indirect purchaser claims, after the Court of Appeals’ decision this week in Teague v. Bayer. That decision reverses the North Carolina Business Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing.
For those whose hearts don’t start beating faster when
State ex rel. Cooper v. McClure, December 14, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Court found that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine did not apply to the false submission of data to a public agency. The Court further found this conduct was not entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. Nor were the Defendants entitled to state action immunity, or the protection of
Business Court Gives Broad Interpretation To Its Mandatory Jurisdiction Over Antitrust Cases
The Business Court has mandatory jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-45.4 over claims involving "antitrust law, except claims based solely on unfair competition under N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1."
The Court gave a broad reading to its grant of its antitrust jurisdiction in an Order today in Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, in
State ex rel. Cooper v. McClure, 2007 NCBC 24 (N.C. Super. July 19, 2007)(Tennille)
The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that the defendants had participated in a conspiracy in restraint of trade with regard to public contracts for the remediation of underground storage tanks. The Court found that the defendants had engaged in an orchestrated effort to submit artificially high bids in response to a solicitation
Teague v. Bayer AG, 2007 NCBC 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 7, 2007)(Tennille)
The Court, again, considered the issue of indirect purchaser standing. It reiterated the factors it looks to in determining whether there is such standing, as articulated in its opinion in Crouch v. Crompton Corp.
Crouch had involved one product, tires, but this case involved ethylene propylene diene monomer, which the Court observed might be used
State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. McClure, 2004 NCBC 8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2004)(Tennille)
Plaintiff, a state agency, charged that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices for environmental consulting work. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Court rejected this argument, characterizing defendants’ supposedly protected conduct as involving the submission of false data for the purpose of inflating
Crouch v. Crompton Corp. and Morris v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 2004 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2004)(Tennille)
The Court addressed again the issue of indirect purchaser standing under the North Carolina antitrust laws in these consolidated cases. It held that although such purchasers do have standing, there are limitations on that standing which barred the claims of the plaintiffs and it granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
In the first case, the plaintiffs
Adams v. Aventis, S.A., 2003 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2003)(Tennille)
The Court found that an indirect purchaser had standing under North Carolina law to assert an antitrust claim, and denied a motion to dismiss. It certified the issue for immediate appeal.