Legal Opinion

Conopco, Inc. v. Arkema, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 31, 2010No. Civil Action No. 05-666; MDL Docket No. 1682PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

DALZELL, Judge.

Two direct purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and derivative persalts, Conopeo, Inc. and Reckett Benckiser, Inc., here pursue opt-out claims against FMC Corp. and FMC Foret S.A. (collectively “FMC”)1 for purported price fixing in alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § l.2 These plaintiffs seek to recover damages for purchases of perborates that occurred in the United States and abroad during the time when the defendants allegedly engaged in price-fixing. On January 25, 2007, we denied the defendants’ previous facial challenge to our subject matter…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
  5. Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API