The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that determining whether an asset swap agreement between grocery wholesalers should be judged under the rule of reason or as a per se market allocation agreement required fact-finding by a jury. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that an alleged breach of contracts to supply generic drug companies with an unbranded version of a drug did not state a monopolization claim under a duty to deal theory.
Other antitrust developments of note included the Second Circuit’s determination that the federal statute defining the extraterritorial reach of U.S. antitrust law goes to the merits of the claim rather than the jurisdictional power of the court and a district court’s dismissal of antitrust claims by a horse trainer who was banned from a racetrack.
Asset Swap
This content has been archived.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]
