IN RE AGGRENOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 3:14-md-2516 (SRU). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20150722a40
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2015
Summary: FootNotes 1. I assume familiarity with the factual and legal background of the case, which is discussed at much greater length in the March 23 decision. See In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 1311352 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2015). 2. If the Organizational Plaintiffs were purchasers, the lack of clarity on that point is underscored by the fact that the West headnote got it wrong, summarizing one holding as: "Filing of antitrust class action, by indirect purchasers . .
Summary: FootNotes 1. I assume familiarity with the factual and legal background of the case, which is discussed at much greater length in the March 23 decision. See In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 1311352 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2015). 2. If the Organizational Plaintiffs were purchasers, the lack of clarity on that point is underscored by the fact that the West headnote got it wrong, summarizing one holding as: "Filing of antitrust class action, by indirect purchasers . . ...
More
FootNotes
1. I assume familiarity with the factual and legal background of the case, which is discussed at much greater length in the March 23 decision. See In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 1311352 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2015).
2. If the Organizational Plaintiffs were purchasers, the lack of clarity on that point is underscored by the fact that the West headnote got it wrong, summarizing one holding as: "Filing of antitrust class action, by indirect purchasers . . . did not toll statute of limitations in class action suit by advocacy groups which did not engage in actual purchases of drugs." 261 F. Supp. 2d at 190.
3. It is worth noting that the interpretation offered in the Areeda and Hovenkamp treatise may also have influenced the district court opinions discussed above, since both cite the relevant section.
4. Grimm also summarized its conclusion with a quotation from Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946), which contains an internal quotation from United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910). Those cases also both pertain to criminal conspiracies.
5. The defendants indicate that they do not presently seek interlocutory review of those aspects of my March 23 order.
Source: Leagle
