Capper-Volstead: 5 Things Antitrust Lawyers Need To Know
|
|
- Adrian Bennett
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: Capper-Volstead: 5 Things Antitrust Lawyers Need To Know Law360, New York (October 23, 2012, 12:41 PM ET) -- This year marks the 90th anniversary of the Capper-Volstead Act, passed in 1922 to support the nation s agricultural cooperatives by providing them and their members with a strong immunity from the antitrust laws in order to empower farmers against the powerful entities from which they buy and to which they sell. The act is the basis upon which approximately 3,000 U.S. agricultural cooperatives representing the majority of the nation s 2 million farmers organize themselves.[1] Although the Capper-Volstead Act has survived many legal tests in its history, at present it is subject to a new and unprecedented series of antitrust legal challenges. Currently, four large nationwide antitrust class actions attack cooperatives Capper-Volstead immunity. Those cases each cover an entire industry the mushroom, egg, dairy and potato industries and are being litigated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (two cases), the District of Idaho, and the Northern District of California. In turn, Capper-Volstead, a once sleepy backwater in the antitrust world, has now become a must-know statute for antitrust practitioners. They should know and understand the following key points about the Capper-Volstead Act and its application as it relates to the current disputes: 1) The Act s Immunity Is Broad and Flexible The statute allows cooperatives and their members to engage in a broad range of conduct, including joint marketing, processing, branding, sales, pricing, supply management and price negotiation. The current antitrust class actions challenge whether the act is as flexible as once thought, using arguments pushing at the upper and lower limits of the act. First, the plaintiffs in those lawsuits argue that certain activities long held to be immunized are not. In doing so, they are asking courts to judicially shrink the breadth of Capper-Volstead protection. The specifics of these requests are addressed in the following paragraphs. Second, plaintiffs also argue that a cooperative is not eligible for Capper-Volstead immunity if it does not engage in enough immunized conduct. But there is no requirement that a cooperative walk and talk like an iconic full-service cooperative or engage in the entire ambit of immunized activity to receive the immunity. To the contrary, courts have held that even if a cooperative does nothing else other than mere price fixing, it is entitled to Capper-Volstead immunity,[2] and that view is unlikely to change. In advising clients, practitioners should be aware of the full scope of protection the act provides, but balance that with the current legal challenges noted above.
2 2) Vertically Integrated Companies Can Be Members of Cooperatives Just as Capper-Volstead cooperatives come in all shapes and sizes, there is no requirement that their members fit into a predetermined image of what a farmer ought to look like. Members must simply be producers that are engaged in the production of agricultural products. [3] No further qualification is required. The question of who is a producer, however, is one of the most hotly debated aspects of the Capper- Volstead Act. In the current round of lawsuits, the plaintiffs argue that a farmer may lose its producer status if it is vertically integrated (i.e., engages in both production and downstream processing). Such arguments represent a radical departure from established case law and the act s legislative history. Large, corporate and vertically integrated entities existed at the time of the act s passage and were contemplated as producers by its drafters.[4] In fact, the only entities courts have ever determined to not qualify as producers with rare exception[5] are pure processors. That is, the entities excluded were those that buy (rather than produce) agricultural products and enter the production line only at its later processing stages. [6] Indeed, even in opinions ruling that pure processors are excluded, the U.S. Supreme Court did not challenge the ability of vertically integrated entities to be members of Capper-Volstead cooperatives.[7] The current lawsuits challenge such vertical integration. These challenges are unlikely to gain traction with courts. Practitioners should advise cooperatives to employ an appropriate process to confirm their members status as producers. 3) Record-Keeping Formalities Matter Now More Than Ever A fast-emerging issue is what happens if a cooperative learns that a member might not qualify as a producer under the Capper-Volstead Act after the fact (i.e., once it already is a member). This can occur despite a cooperative s best efforts to comply with the requirement that all members be producers and its good faith reliance on members statements that they are in fact producers. These concerns are magnified because other members producer status is usually unknown to fellow members (and sometimes even to the cooperative itself). Members evolve their businesses; entire industries evolve; and these and other circumstances can call into question a current member s status as a producer. After a 2009 decision by a federal district court in the Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,[8] this situation carries potentially disastrous consequences for all cooperatives and their members. In the Mushroom case, one farming family organized its business into multiple entities,[9] all which had the same or overlapping ownership (a situation that is not uncommon in agriculture, where family-owned operations often employ one corporate entity to own the land, another to conduct farming operations, and a third to conduct associated downstream processing). In Mushrooms, one of the family s corporate entities grew the mushrooms while another packaged them. The family inadvertently had signed up the packing entity as the member of the cooperative.[10] Though this appeared to be merely a form over substance issue, because the family itself was a producer, the court held that this technical violation, likely resulting from an administrative mistake, destroyed the immunity for the entire cooperative and potentially all other members.[11] This ruling is being heavily challenged by defendants and outside industry groups. On interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit declined to reach the merits of this specific issue (stating it was not ripe for review per the collateral order doctrine) but called the issue of whether the inadvertent inclusion of an ineligible member strips an agricultural cooperative of Capper-Volstead protection both serious and unsettled. [12]
3 Regardless, strong precedent exists for emphasizing substance over record-keeping formalities in these situations.[13] The most well-reasoned view is that an integrated producer should not lose its immunity under the act simply because of a technical mistake or inadvertence as to which of the related entities within an integrated farming operation it listed as the member of a cooperative. In some situations, one part of a related business might function as the agent of the farming entity. Under standard agency law, the agent stands in the shoes of the principal. When a producer s bona fide agent has through an administrative error been made the titular member of the cooperative, the producer, and all other member of the cooperative, should not lose the protection of the act as a result. Additionally, the well-established Copperweld principle that courts treat all affiliated entities owned in common as a single economic unit applies equally to sibling entities as it does to a parent and wholly owned subsidiary.[14] That principle calls for a functional analysis of how the parties actually operate. [15] It should apply in agriculture, as it does in any other industry, when farmers hold their various operations (farming, landowning, processing) in different corporate entities but with unity of ownership. Until the current disputes are resolved, however, cooperatives and their members should be conscious of record-keeping formalities. 4) The Act s Immunity Covers Supply Control Activities The recent lawsuits have directly assaulted an activity that cooperatives have long considered a central part of their Capper-Volstead immunity: the right to jointly manage their supply and engage in advance planning for how much to produce. Cooperatives that engage in such supply control measures whether through quotas, informal encouragement, or simply information exchange often do so in reliance on their Capper-Volstead immunity. Numerous court decisions from multiple federal circuit courts going back decades have supported the interpretation that the Capper-Volstead Act immunizes many types of supply control measures.[16] The act s drafters also expressly contemplated the act allowing farmers to reduce the production in response to declines in demand just as corporations can, and to, through cooperation, have some control and agreement as to production and as to prices. [17] As one rationale in support of cooperatives being able to engage in such activity, avoiding a cycle of boom and bust production helps ensure a stable food supply, and this has indeed been the result in the United States. Moreover, in practical terms, many cooperatives consider supply control as simply the other side of the coin of their right to engage in price fixing, which indisputably is protected by the act s immunity. Nonetheless, recent government investigations and the private litigations mentioned above and one 2011 court decision, in dicta have attempted to distinguish prior case law and precedent by suggesting that there is a material difference between: (1) preproduction and (2) post-production supply control. They suggest that while post-production supply control measures (i.e., joint decisions to destroy product or withhold it from the market and let it go to waste) are covered by the act s immunity, preproduction supply control measures (i.e., joint decisions about how much to plant in the first place) are forbidden.[18]
4 The issue is of vital importance to many cooperatives, both those whose business models are centered on preproduction supply control (as is the case for many), and those that may simply take joint actions that have an incidental effect on supply, because these actions may come under scrutiny as well. The more well-reasoned interpretation is that both pre- and post-production supply control are permitted under the act, but the issue is currently in dispute. In light of these lawsuits, counselors should review any cooperative activities that control or that could affect supply. 5) Cooperatives Are Entitled to Respond to Customer Demands Related to Product Attributes Cooperatives are on the front lines of the most cutting-edge issue in agriculture: the demand that products be produced or sourced in certain socially desirable ways, which may or may not change the actual products themselves. Modern consumers often demand products with attributes related to the way the products are produced, such as sweatshop-free clothing. These demands are particularly prevalent for agricultural products, including organic, environmentally friendly, locally produced or fair-trade products; free-range chicken; hormone-free milk; or Kosher or Halal foods. U.S. agriculture is a world leader in these issues, but responding to these demands can impose additional costs on producers. How to recoup these costs is a central issue for many cooperatives, and one on which they are perfectly entitled to work in concert. It is undisputed that the statute provides members of cooperatives with the ability to jointly discuss and negotiate whether and how to respond to price- and cost-related demands. Hence, joint negotiation and responses to social costs and attributes fall squarely within the immunity provided by the act. It is within the most central power provided by the act the power to jointly price and negotiate sales. Even so, some of the current Capper-Volstead litigations question whether the act covers such activities. Under any fair reading of the act and its intent to empower farmers, it certainly does. Yet, until the current lawsuits are resolved, counselors should scrutinize the purposes, effects, and implementation of any joint activity regarding demands for such socially or environmentally conscious product attributes. The Capper-Volstead Act and the protections it provides to U.S. farmers can no longer be taken for granted. The four currently pending nationwide class actions have raised nuanced issues as to the act s interpretation and application that will evolve Capper-Volstead law. Depending on their outcomes, these cases may force the large portion of U.S. agriculture that relies on the act to evolve as well. Antitrust lawyers with an understanding of Capper-Volstead will play an essential role in advising their clients through this process. --By Christopher E. Ondeck and Kathleen M. Clair, Crowell & Moring LLP Chris Ondeck is a partner and Kathleen Clair is an associate in Crowell s Washington, D.C., office. Chris Ondeck represents parties in the eggs, potatoes and mushrooms cases referenced above. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, About NCFC, [2] N. Cal Supermarkets Inc. v. Cent. Cal. Lettuce Producers Cooperative, 413 F. Supp. 984 (N.D. Cal. 1976), aff d 580 F.2d 369 (1978). [3] 7 U.S.C Additionally, cooperatives composed of producers may also be members of other
5 Capper-Volstead cooperatives. [4] E.g., N. Cal. Supermarkets Inc. v. Cent. Cal. Lettuce Producers Coop., 413 F. Supp. 984, 993 n.11 (N.D. Cal. 1976), aff d 580 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1978). [5] See United States v. Hinote, 823 F. Supp (S.D. Miss. 1993). [6] See Nat l Broiler, 436 U.S. at 822; see also, e.g., Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers Inc., 389 U.S. 384, (1967). [7] See Nat l Broiler, 436 U.S. at 821; Case-Swayne, 389 U.S. at [8] In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 621 F. Supp. 2d 274 (E.D. Pa. 2009). [9] Id. at [10] Id. at , [11] Id. at , 291. [12] 655 F.3d 158, 164 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011). [13] See Alexander v. Nat l Farmers Org., 687 F.2d 1173, (8th Cir. 1982); see also In re Mushroom, 621 F. Supp. 2d at & n.11. [14] E.g., Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., 248 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2001); Guzowski v. Hartman, 969 F.2d 211, 214 (6th Cir. 1992); Century Oil Tool Co. v. Prod. Specialties Inc., 737 F.2d 1316, 1317 (5th Cir. 1984); Bell Atl. Bus. Sys. Servs. v. Hitachi Data Sys. Corp., 849 F. Supp. 702, (N.D. Cal. 1994). [15] American Needle Inc. v. National Football League et al., 560 U.S., 130 S. Ct. 2201, (2010). [16] E.g., Holly Sugar v. Goshen County Coop. Beet Growers Ass n, 725 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1984); Kinnett Dairies Inc. v. Dairymen Inc., 512 F. Supp. 608 (M.D. Ga. 1981), aff d, 715 F.2d 520 (11th Cir. 1983); Alexander v. Nat l Farmers Org., 687 F.2d 1173, (8th Cir. 1982); Ewald Bros. Inc. v. Mid-America Dairymen Inc., 877 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1989); Treasure Valley Potato Bargaining Ass n v. Ore-Ida Foods Inc., 497 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 999 (1974). [17] 62 CONG. REC (1922); 60 CONG. REC (1922). [18] E.g., In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litig., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1141, (D. Idaho 2011) (dicta). All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION Doc. 294 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE MUSHROOM DIRECT : Master File NO. 06-0620 PURCHASER ANTITRUST
More informationTHIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
Case 2:08-md-02002-GEKP Document 1743 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION MULTIDISTRICT
More information3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationGCR. The Antitrust Review of the Americas Published by Global Competition Review in association with. Baker & Hostetler LLP
The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2015 Published by Global Competition Review in association with GCR GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW www.globalcompetitionreview.com 1 The Antitrust Review of the Americas
More informationReverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Reverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
More informationThe Civil Practice & Procedure Committee s Young Lawyers Advisory Panel: Perspectives in Antitrust
The Civil Practice & Procedure Committee s Young Lawyers Advisory Panel: Perspectives in Antitrust NOVEMBER 2017 VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1 In This Issue: Sister Company Liability for Antitrust Conspiracies: Open
More informationIn 5th Circ., Time Is Not On SEC s Side
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com In 5th Circ., Time Is Not On SEC s Side Law360, New
More informationPleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pleading Direct Patent Infringement Without Form 18
More informationA Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
More informationEmerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Emerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust
More informationHow Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False Claims Act Memo
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False
More informationConsumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion Law360,
More informationMaximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Maximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions Law360,
More informationMissing The Class Action Removal Boat To Federal Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Missing The Class Action Removal Boat To Federal Court
More information2 Noerr-Pennington Rulings Affirm Narrow Scope Of Immunity
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 2 Noerr-Pennington Rulings Affirm Narrow
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More informationThe Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
More informationA Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
More informationUsing A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Using A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationThe Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence Law360,
More informationThe Potentially Sweeping Effects Of EPA's Chesapeake Plan
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Potentially Sweeping Effects Of EPA's Chesapeake
More informationCase 1:08-mc PLF Document 300 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-mc-00511-PLF Document 300 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION ) LITIGATION ) ) Misc. No. 08-mc-0511 (PLF)
More informationUS V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
More informationWhat High Court's Expansion Of FCA Time Limits Would Mean
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com What High Court's Expansion Of FCA Time Limits
More informationShari'ah Compliance Does Not Affect English Law Payments
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Shari'ah Compliance Does Not Affect English
More informationHow to Navigate the Antitrust Cartel Labyrinth
How to Navigate the Antitrust Cartel Labyrinth Moderator: Barbara T. Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP Panelists: Benjamin J. Eichel, Pepper Hamilton LLP Carol M. Gray, Saint-Gobain Corporation Michael J.
More information5 Red Flags In Pharmaceutical Settlements
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 5 Red Flags In Pharmaceutical Settlements Law360,
More informationViewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Viewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens:
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationCalculating Contract Damages In A Volatile Market
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Calculating Contract Damages In A Volatile Market
More informationPharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?
More informationCase Study: CLS Bank V. Alice Corp.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Case Study: CLS Bank V. Alice Corp. Law360, New York
More informationSeeking Disapproval: Presidential Review Of ITC Orders
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Seeking Disapproval: Presidential Review Of ITC Orders
More informationAgriculture and Antitrust Enforcement
Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement Farmer Cooperative Conference December 6, 2010 Marlis Carson Senior Vice President and General Counsel National Council of Farmer Cooperatives What Is Antitrust Law?
More informationIqbal And The Twombly Pleading Standard
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Iqbal And The Twombly Pleading Standard Law360,
More informationHow ACPERA Has Affected Criminal Cartel Enforcement
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How ACPERA Has Affected Criminal Cartel Enforcement
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Motion to Certify under 28 U.S.C.
Case 1:14-cv-02211-AT Document 45 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Civil Action
More informationConsider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
More information11th Circ. Ruling May Affect Criminal Securities Fraud Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 11th Circ. Ruling May Affect Criminal Securities
More informationCalif. Unconscionability Analysis In Conflict With FAA
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Calif. Unconscionability Analysis In Conflict With
More informationPlaintiffs May Be Hard-Pressed In New Olive Oil Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Plaintiffs May Be Hard-Pressed In New Olive
More informationThe Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation Defense
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
More informationBristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Bristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword By
More informationHow To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Project Vote, et al., : : Plaintiffs : Case No. 1:08cv2266 : v. : Judge James S. Gwin : Madison County Board of :
More informationDon't Overlook Pleading Challenges In State Pharma Suits
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Don't Overlook Pleading Challenges In State
More informationThe Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
More informationArbitration Discovery Has Its Limits
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Arbitration Discovery Has Its Limits Law360,
More informationClass Action Exposure Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Class Action Exposure Post-Concepcion Law360, New
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 217-cv-00282-RWS Document 40 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION VASHAUN JONES, Plaintiff, v. LANIER FEDERAL CREDIT
More informationReject The Mistaken Qui Tam FCA Resealing Doctrine
Reject The Mistaken Qui Tam FCA Resealing Doctrine Law360, January 11, 2018, 12:46 PM EST In recent years, a number of courts, with the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice, have embraced the view
More informationCase 3:05-cv JGC Document 229 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 229 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al., : Plaintiffs, : VS.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x PETER R. GINSBERG LAW LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFLA SPORTS LLC, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationA Cautionary Tale For Law Firms Engaging With Prosecutors
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Cautionary Tale For Law Firms Engaging
More informationPTAB At 5: Part 3 Fed. Circ. Statistics
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com PTAB At 5: Part 3 Fed. Circ. Statistics By
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Klein & Heuchan, Inc. v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc. et al Doc. 149 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION KLEIN & HEUCHAN, INC., Plaintiff /Counter-Defendant,
More informationWhen States Fail To Act On Federal Pipeline Permits
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com When States Fail To Act On Federal Pipeline
More informationPatent Damages Post Festo
Page 1 of 6 Patent Damages Post Festo Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Law360, New
More informationCase 7:13-cv RDP Document 5 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 10
Case 7:13-cv-01141-RDP Document 5 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 10 FILED 2013 Jul-03 AM 08:54 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN
More informationNew Obstacles For VPPA Plaintiffs At 9th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com New Obstacles For VPPA Plaintiffs At 9th
More informationThe Battle Over 3rd-Party Releases Continues
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Battle Over 3rd-Party Releases Continues
More informationTown Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member Standing?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Town Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member
More informationApril 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY
April 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Developments in U.S. Law Regarding a More Liberal Approach to Discovery Requests Made by Foreign Litigants Under 28 U.S.C. 1782 In these times of global economic turmoil,
More informationThe Real Issue In Fed. Circ. Dynamic Drinkware Decision
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Real Issue In Fed. Circ. Dynamic Drinkware Decision
More informationUSPTO Training Memo Lacks Sound Basis In The Law
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com USPTO Training Memo Lacks Sound Basis In The Law Law360,
More informationFIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
FIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) OMTRON USA, LLC ) Case No.: 12-13076 (BLS) ) Debtor. ) Hearing Date: January 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. ) Objection
More informationCase 1:12-cv RWZ Document 48 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-12016-RWZ Document 48 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Barry K. Winters d/b/a BKW Farms, Stacy Preston Winters, Paul D. Sogn and Rachelle
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189
Case: 1:16-cv-07054 Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SAMUEL LIT, Plaintiff, v. No. 16 C 7054 Judge
More information3 Key Defense Arguments For Post-Lucia SEC Proceedings
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Key Defense Arguments For Post-Lucia SEC
More informationDOJ Stays Are Often Unfair To Private Antitrust Plaintiffs
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com DOJ Stays Are Often Unfair To Private Antitrust Plaintiffs
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 117-cv-05214-RWS Document 24 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION VASHAUN JONES, Plaintiff, v. PIEDMONT PLUS FEDERAL
More informationPOST-SMITHFIELD AND HAZELTINE: AN EVALUATION OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTED ACT AS AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF MARKETING POWER FOR PRODUCERS
POST-SMITHFIELD AND HAZELTINE: AN EVALUATION OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTED ACT AS AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF MARKETING POWER FOR PRODUCERS Amber S. Brady I. Introduction...331 II. Legislative Attempts to Protect Producers...335
More informationTips For The Antitrust Lawyer Taking Depositions Abroad
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tips For The Antitrust Lawyer Taking Depositions Abroad
More informationArguing The Future Of Climate Change Litigation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Arguing The Future Of Climate Change Litigation Law360,
More informationA Texas Framework For Extending The Economic Loss Rule
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Texas Framework For Extending The Economic Loss
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CASE 0:11-cv-03354-PAM-AJB Document 22 Filed 06/13/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Gene Washington, Diron Talbert, and Sean Lumpkin, on behalf of themselves and all others
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED DEC 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CYNTHIA CARDARELLI PAINTER, individually and on behalf of other members
More information6th Circ. Rejects 'Fairyland' FCA Damages Theory
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 6th Circ. Rejects 'Fairyland' FCA Damages Theory Law360,
More informationCivil Price-Fixing Cases In EU Vs. US: 10 Key Issues
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Civil Price-Fixing Cases In EU Vs. US: 10 Key Issues
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationSupreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m A u g u s t 2 0 1 3 1 Supreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA Blake L. Harrop S States
More informationA Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO
More informationJusticiability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review. Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016
Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016 Overview Standing Mootness Ripeness 2 Standing Does the party bringing suit have
More information'Willful Blindness' And Induced Patent Infringement
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 'Willful Blindness' And Induced Patent Infringement
More informationEnforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Enforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless
More informationExamining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB Cases: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Examining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB
More information5 Takeaways From Bipartisan BuyAmerican.gov Bill
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 5 Takeaways From Bipartisan BuyAmerican.gov
More informationThird Circuit Bankruptcy Case Summaries
Third Circuit Bankruptcy Case Summaries 7.23.10 Recent Third Circuit decision In re Garden Ridge Corp., 2010 WL 272145 (3d Cir. July 9, 2010) (Not Precedential) On July 9, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed
More informationDobbs V. Wyeth: Are We There Yet, And At What Cost?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Dobbs V. Wyeth: Are We There Yet, And At What Cost?
More informationTC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
More informationUS AIRWAYS V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION UNDER THE RLA
US AIRWAYS V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION UNDER THE RLA By Robert A. Siegel O Melveny & Myers LLP Railway and Airline Labor Law Committee American
More information[PROPOSED] ORDER IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, et al., ) Petitioners, )
Received 12/10/2017 11:43:42 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Filed 12/10/2017 11:43:00 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 261 Mu 2017 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA League of Women
More informationExpectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Expectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
More informationLTA Issues Update: Antitrust, Tax, Legislative Developments
Legal-Tax-Accounting Memorandum NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES 50 F STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-626-8700 fax 202-626-8722 www.ncfc.org LTA Memo 2009-4 August 7, 2009 LTA Issues
More informationAn Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com An Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv TCB
Case: 16-12015 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 1 of 15 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-12015 D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00086-TCB ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE
More information