FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W275200588> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W275200588 startingPage "1" @default.
• W275200588 abstract "Antitrust suits are routinely brought as class actions. This should not be surprising: antitrust cases often involve a course of conduct that allegedly injured hundreds or even thousands of individuals. Many antitrust class actions involve an overreaching common issue, such as whether the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to restrain trade or whether the alleged conspiracy caused classwide injury. On the other hand, antitrust class actions sometimes involve complicated, highly individualized issues relating to injury and damages-issues that could make a trial unmanageable. Not surprisingly, therefore, the case law on class certification in antitrust cases is in disarray. This disarray has manifested itself in at least four ways. First, some courts invoke a special presumption in favor of class certification in antitrust cases; other courts do not.1 second, some courts require plaintiffs to put forward a specific plan as to how an antitrust class action will be tried; others do not and simply certify without resolving how the case will be tried.2 Third, courts in antitrust cases differ with respect to the weight given to expert testimony: some courts look only at plaintiffs' proffered testimony and virtually always accept it as sufficient for purposes of class certification; others adopt a more exacting approach and assess the parties' expert testimony with care before ruling on certification.3 Fourth, some courts adopt a blanket rule that individualized damages in antitrust cases do not defeat class certification; others eschew any such rule and instead look at the circumstances of the particular case.4 Surprisingly, this disarray in antitrust class action law has received little scholarly attention.5 This article examines these four conflicting lines of authority and presents an approach for how each should be resolved. The discussion is limited to classes under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that common issues predominate over individual issues and that class treatment be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.6 The reason for this focus is that the vast majority of antitrust class actions are brought under (b)(3).7 This article concludes that these four issues can all be resolved by one overarching principle: courts should adhere to the Supreme Court's instruction, more than two decades ago, that certification should be granted only after a rigorous analysis of the requirements of Rule 23.8 Cutting corners with respect to Rule 23-and certifying cases based on speculation or relaxed criteria-only leads to coerced settlements or to long, drawn-out proceedings that ultimately result in decertification.9 There is ample flexibility under a strict construction of Rule 23 to permit certification of many, if not most, antitrust class actions. I. Sources of Disagreement A. Whether Antitrust cases Should Be Presumed Appropriate for Class Certification 1. The Conflict As noted above, some courts have given a preferred status to antitrust cases, holding that such cases are presumptively suitable for class certification. Other courts have refused to give antitrust cases a special status. This conflict has endured for more than 25 years. a. Rigorous Analysis In Windham v. American Brands, Inc.,10 a panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned a decision by the district court denying class certification in a suit under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The suit, filed by South Carolina tobacco growers, alleged that the major tobacco companies (and the Secretary of Agriculture) fixed prices and rigged bids on flue-cured tobacco at South Carolina auctions. In denying class certification, the district court found that individualized issuesincluding the determination of damages-predominated over common issues. The panel found that the district court had abused its discretion. It reasoned that is almost a rebuttable presumption that [an antitrust] class action should be allowed where there is a plausible claim of violation of the Sherman Act. …" @default.
• W275200588 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W275200588 creator A5030572493 @default.
• W275200588 date "2005-10-01" @default.
• W275200588 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W275200588 title "Antitrust Class Actions: Chaos in the Courts" @default.
• W275200588 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W275200588 type Work @default.
• W275200588 sameAs 275200588 @default.
• W275200588 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W275200588 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W275200588 hasAuthorship W275200588A5030572493 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C2780253743 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C46304622 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W275200588 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C11413529 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C154945302 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C162324750 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C17744445 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C190253527 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C199539241 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C2776687834 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C2777212361 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C2777381055 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C2780253743 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C41008148 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C46304622 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C48103436 @default.
• W275200588 hasConceptScore W275200588C97460637 @default.
• W275200588 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W275200588 hasLocation W2752005881 @default.
• W275200588 hasOpenAccess W275200588 @default.
• W275200588 hasPrimaryLocation W2752005881 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W1487616329 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W1503658679 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W1521861976 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W1566894743 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W156874288 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W1686373121 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W1756354519 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W208357428 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W2259765029 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W2779825002 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W282093997 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W294426923 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W3122480429 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W3124558955 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W3125415268 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W3162229127 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W3183804930 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W3184622521 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W571364231 @default.
• W275200588 hasRelatedWork W49383846 @default.
• W275200588 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W275200588 isParatext "false" @default.
• W275200588 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W275200588 magId "275200588" @default.
• W275200588 workType "article" @default.