- 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
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- 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
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
July 10, 2020Silicon Valley Attorneys Listed as “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars”
-
July 9, 2020Four Robins Kaplan Firm Members Recognized by Minnesota Lawyer
-
July 9, 2020Robins Kaplan Signs Mansfield Rule to Boost Diversity in Leadership
-
July 21, 2020Discovering a Hidden Revenue Stream: Recoveries from Antitrust Class Action Settlements in Economic Downturn
-
August 18, 2020Discovering a Hidden Revenue Stream: Recoveries from Antitrust Class Action Settlements in Economic Downturn
-
September 10, 2020Volunteer Lawyers Network Riverfront Celebration 2020
-
Summer 2020The Brave New World of Virtual Notarization
-
Summer 2020What Could be the Harm? Minnesota's Harmless Error Statute
-
Summer 2020What's a Fiduciary To Do? Considerations for Periods of Uncertainty
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. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
David Martinez
Partner
Member of the Executive Board;
Pro Bono Chair, Los Angeles Office;
Member of the Firm's Diversity Committee
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.