Legal Opinion
In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 31, 2010No. Civil Action No. 05-666. MDL Docket No. 1682PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
702 F.Supp.2d 548 (2010)
In re HYDROGEN PEROXIDE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to:
Conopco, Inc., et al.
v.
Arkema, Inc., et al. and
Conopco, Inc., et al.
v.
FMC Foret, S.A.
Civil Action No. 05-666. MDL Docket No. 1682.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
March 31, 2010.
William J. Blechman, Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow and Spector, Miami, FL, for Conopco, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser Inc.
Ralph E. Cascarilla, Walter & Haverfield, Cleveland, OH, for FMC Corporation.
Evan W. Davis, Michael I. Frankel, George G. Gordon, Christine C. Levin, Jeffrey W. Rubin, Joseph A.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- 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
- Cna v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2014
- Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2012