- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Childhood Sexual Abuse Litigation
- 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
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Restructuring and Business Bankruptcy
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
- Litigation Support Services
-
December 4, 2019State of Minnesota Sues JUUL
-
November 26, 2019Minnesota Lawyer Honors Two Robins Kaplan Attorneys as 2019 Attorneys of the Year
-
November 21, 2019Firm, Attorney Stacey Slaughter Recognized by National Law Journal
-
January 10, 2020Bridgeport 2020 Consumer Class Action Litigation Conference
-
January 15-17, 2020Loss Executives Association 89th Annual Meeting and Mid-Winter Educational Program
-
January 28, 2020Boston 1L Diversity Summer Associate Program Reception
-
November 2019CLASS ACTION: Experts weigh in on significant class action developments
-
November 15, 20192019 Case Developments: Are Massachusetts Insurers Required To Be Perfect In An Imperfect World?
-
November 15, 2019Artificial Intelligence v. General Data Protection Regulation: Complex Risks in Changing Times
The State Of Umbrella Damages Under Calif. Antitrust Law
County of San Mateo v. CSL suggests umbrella damages for cartel-motivated price raises by non-cartel members possible for state law claims.
October 7, 2014
Law360, New York (October 07, 2014, 10:08 AM ET) -- Several federal courts have held that damages caused when noncartel members raise prices in response to cartel behavior are not recoverable under the Sherman Act. [1] These courts reason that so‐called “umbrella damages” are "unacceptably speculative and complex" because they require inquiry into whether nonconspirators' prices were caused by the cartel or other pricing considerations. Petroleum Products, 691 F.2d at 1340‐41. Applying these principles, at least one court from the Northern District of California has also barred umbrella damages under state antitrust laws.[2]
All Content © 2003-2012, Portfolio Media, Inc.
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.
Related Professionals
David Martinez
Partner
Related Publications
Related News
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.