The US Supreme Court handed down its much awaited decision in Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly on 21 May 2007, heightening the pleading requirements for agreements in restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act. For a claim to survive beyond the pleading stage, a plaintiff’s allegations must ‘plausibly’ suggest (not merely be consistent with) an agreement. The Supreme Court thought it was inappropriate for claims that did not meet this standard to proceed to discovery given ‘the costs of modern federal antitrust litigation and the increasing caseload of the federal courts’. Defendants will now find it easier to obtain dismissals of complaints alleging parallel conduct, without further evidence of an agreement.
Another potentially defendant-friendly decision from the US Supreme Court is expected soon: The court will decide whether minimum resale price maintenance should still be considered per se illegal.
More information
For information regarding possible implications for your business, contact a member of the Litigation team.