Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-3 of 3
Grocery profit-sharing arrangement during labor strike ruled anticompetitive
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 20 2010
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that an agreement among grocery chains in Southern California to share profits during an anticipated labor strike was anticompetitive in violation of the Sherman Act and rejected defendants' argument that the violation could be excused because the agreement was designed to be used as an economic weapon in a labor dispute
Antitrust laws implicated when competing supermarkets agree to share revenues during labor dispute
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 15 2011
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided en banc ruling, has determined that while an agreement between competitors to share revenues during a labor dispute is not immune from antitrust laws, the district court properly denied a challenge to an agreement between California supermarkets as a per se violation of the Sherman Act or on the basis of a “quick look” antitrust analysis; the Ninth Circuit found that a truncated or abbreviated review process is insufficient to determine whether this type of agreement has affected competition in the relevant market
Lawsuits concluded: no trademark for “Texas Toast,” no class claims for Joe’s Crab Shack employees, no racial discrimination class claims against McDonald’s, no wrongful death suit against Dole Food, no antitrust action against Whole Foods
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 8 2012
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the Roskam Baking Co
Current Search
- Author - Mark Anstoetter
- Workarea - Employment & Labor
- Workarea - Competition