Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCharlotta Martinsson Modified over 5 years ago
1
Antitrust Law Fall 2016 NYU School of Law Dale Collins
Class Slides 6. Proving Conspiracy Antitrust Law Fall NYU School of Law Dale Collins
2
Monsanto/Matsushita rule
Recall the price fixing “prisoner’s dilemma” in single period game Two symmetrical firms Firm 2 Firms split monopoly profits of 20 Monopoly Competitive Monopoly 10, 10 10, 10 0, 12.50 Competitive firm takes total competitive profits of 12.5 against firm charging monopoly price Firm 1 Normal competitive profits of 6.25 for each firm—the independently rational strategy for each firm in a single period game Competitive 12.50, 0 6.25, 6.25 Key result: Charging the competitive price is the dominant strategy for each firms in the single period game, regardless of what strategy the other firm chooses. But mutual monopoly strategies earn each firm higher profits.
3
Dispositive Motions Class certification motion JMOL Motion to dismiss
Tests whether a genuine issue exists for the trier of fact to determine Pretrial motions; trial preparation Discovery Class certification motion JMOL (in jury trial) Motion to dismiss Trial Appeal Summary judgment motion Tests sufficiency of complaint to proceed to discovery Tests whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by the trier of fact Resolves any genuine issue of material fact; applies law as instructed to facts Tests resolution in trial court
4
Motion to Dismiss Burdens
Plaintiff: To defeat a MTD, must sufficiently plead each and every essential element of the prima facie case Defendant: To win a MTD, need only show that one element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case is inadequately pleaded Elements π Δ Subject matter jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction/venue Prudential standing Plurality Agreement Participation Restraint of trade Unreasonableness Causality/fact of injury Most frequently attacked elements Frequently challenged in rule of reason cases
5
Summary Judgment Motion
Burdens Plaintiff: To defeat a defendant’s SJM, must adduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue on each disputed element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case Defendant: To win a SJM, need only show that defendant’s evidence is sufficient to support a finding in its favor on the challenged element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, and plaintiff fails to respond with evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to that element Elements Δ π Plurality Not challenged May standing on pleading Agreement Challenged—Adequate Must adduce evidence Participation Restraint of trade Unreasonableness Challenged-Inadequate
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.