Bell Atlantic v. Twombly Aftermath

Antitrust Pleadings: Supreme Court Sets New Standard

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A

Conducted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Course Materials

Description

In its May 21 ruling, the Supreme Court raised the bar for plaintiffs to bring antitrust litigation under the Sherman Act. While the Court declined to set a bright-line standard, it ruled simple allegations of conspiracy are not enough to get into court.

It seems the Court reversed one of its leading precedents on Rule 8(a) – Conley v. Gibson (1957). As a result of this ruling, plaintiffs must show more than parallel conduct to plead a Sherman Act sec. 1 claim.

How much more is an open question. The Court said the plaintiffs' allegations must plausibly suggest an agreement among the parties to restrain trade.

Listen as our expert panel gives you valuable guidance on meeting the tough new plausibility requirement.

READ MORE

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • What is the impact for antitrust cases, particularly class actions, of the Twombly decision?
  • How likely is it that the Court's tougher pleading standard be extended beyond antitrust cases?
  • How should antitrust claimants amend or plan their antitrust pleadings after Twombly?

Faculty

Mark J. Botti
Mark J. Botti
Partner
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

He focuses on antitrust matters and has extensive experience involving the antitrust review of mergers and...  |  Read More

Scott A. Stempel
Scott A. Stempel
Partner
Morgan Lewis & Bockius

He is the antitrust practice group leader. He represents clients in merger and non-merger investigations before the...  |  Read More

John L. Longstreth
John L. Longstreth
Partner
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis

He concentrates in antitrust and regulated industries, administrative procedure and litigation. His litigation...  |  Read More