Previous business/academic article Next business/academic article
Business Articles Awards > Concerted Practices

U.S. Third Circuit Sets a High Bar for Price-Fixing Claims

Peter Huston et al., Sidley Austin Antitrust Update, November 9, 2017

See Peter Huston's resume See Ryan Sandrock's resume See John Treece's resume See Angelo Suozzi's resume

Vote for this articleHelp

* Average
** Interesting
*** Good
**** Excellent
***** Must receive an Award!

Please note that the star(s) appearing on the article page before you have voted reflect the status of all votes registered to date.

Readers’ vote will close on February 9, 2018. Readers’ vote will allow you to nominate 1 article for each of the Awards, i.e., 10 Academic articles, 10 Business articles, and the best Soft Laws. The readers’ short-list of Academic and Business Articles will be communicated to the Board together with the 20 articles nominated by the Steering Committees. The Board will decide on the award-winning articles. Results will be announced at the Awards ceremony to take place in Washington DC on the eve of the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting on April 10, 2018.

Click here to read the full article online

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that evidence of parallel price increases and other circumstantial evidence was insufficient to show a price-fixing conspiracy, but rather indicated legal “conscious parallelism” by competitors. In Valspar Corp. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 16-1345, the court ruled that evidence of parallel price increases in oligopolistic markets is insufficient on its own to establish a price-fixing conspiracy.

Download our brochure