Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
A criminal antitrust case involving two bagged ice producers that pleaded guilty to conspiring "to supress and eliminate competition" was recently concludeded in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. While KMK was not involved in this case, it does bring to mind a few key considerations for companies and their attorneys to weigh when faced with bet-the-company criminal and civil litigation.
CONTACT:
Richard L. Creighton, Jr.
Topics
- Technology
- 2006 FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Non-breaching fiduciary
- ERISA
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Privacy
- Social Media
- Taxation
- Real Estate Impact Fee
- Construction Litigation
- Sanctions
- Electronic Data Discovery
- E-Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rule 23.1
- Federal Rule
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- Stock Drop
- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- E-Discovery Vendor or Partner: It’s All in the Name
- Ohio Sanitary Landfill Deemed a Public Utility for Zoning Purposes and Exempt from Zoning Restrictions
- A Personal Jurisdiction Decision Tailor-Made for a Civil Procedure Exam
- Can a prior non-breaching fiduciary's knowledge trigger ERISA limitations: Missed it by that much - One undisputed fact away from summary judgment
- Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
- Impact Fee or Illegal Tax?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
- Class Actions Unconstitutional?
- Justice Sotomayor Speaks!