- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Childhood Sexual Abuse Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Restructuring and Business Bankruptcy
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
April 3, 2020Hollis Salzman, Tara Sutton Named to Lawdragon "500 Leading Lawyers in America" List
-
April 3, 2020Roman Silberfeld Named to 2020 Lawdragon Hall of Fame
-
March 24, 2020Attorneys, Firm Recognized by Managing Intellectual Property
-
April 7, 2020Lending and SBA Options
-
April 10, 2020Minnesota State Bar Association: Probate and Trust Section CLE
-
Postponed10th Annual Disability Justice Seminar
-
April 2, 2020Key Considerations in Evaluating Contractual Performance During the COVID-19 Pandemic
-
April 2, 2020Remote Depositions in the Era of COVID-19
-
April 1, 2020Navigating Software License Disputes in Today’s Evolving Work-From-Home Paradigm
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
No Heightened Pleading Standard for Antitrust Plaintiffs
After Twombly, lower court cases like Evergreen Partnering Group clarify antitrust has no probability or other heightened pleading standard.
August 16, 2013
Law360, New York (August 16, 2013, 11:57 AM ET) ‐‐ In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that factual allegations in a complaint must suggest that the plaintiff has a plausible — as opposed to merely a conceivable — claim for relief. The court also cautioned that requiring plausible grounds to infer an antitrust agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage.
© All Content Copyright 2003-2013, Portfolio Media, Inc. Posted with permission.
The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.
Law360
READ FULL ARTICLE Related Publications
March 31, 2020
Did Antitrust Enforcers Allow for Creation of Competitive Ecosystem Now Drawing Their Ire?
Meegan Hollywood, Adam Mendel - Bloomberg Law
March 24, 2020
February 2020
Australian Antitrust Watchdog Takes Aim at Big Tech
Antitrust Takeaways For Tech From New Australian Report
December 17, 2019
Unintended Consequences: How a DOJ Antitrust Investigation Could Exacerbate Global Warming
The National Law Journal
June 2019
It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over: Can Making ACPERA Restitution Conditional Help Fill a Gap in the Law?
Competition Policy International
Related News
February 20, 2020
January 30, 2020
Back to Top
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.