The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent price-squeeze opinion, a monopoly leveraging claim could not be asserted by purchasers of HIV drugs without allegations of a refusal to deal or below-cost pricing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that a public hospital was shielded from antitrust scrutiny under the state action immunity doctrine but that physicians practicing at the hospital would have to show that they were actively supervised to benefit from the doctrine.
Other recent antitrust developments of note included the New York Court of Appeals’ decision that the Attorney General could seek damages in court on behalf of victims of a bid rigging scheme even though the victims had agreed to arbitration.
Monopoly Leveraging
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
