21 Cited authorities

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research
401 U.S. 321 (1971) Cited 2,495 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,642 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
Anderson News, L. L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc.
680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 592 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants' “varied” actions during the initial stages of the alleged conspiracy did not render the existence of a conspiracy implausible
Continental Co. v. Union Carbide
370 U.S. 690 (1962) Cited 804 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Court of Appeals erred by addressing plaintiff's allegations as separate claims, because in an antitrust case "plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each."
Block v. First Blood Associates
988 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 951 times
Holding that a grant of amendment was proper even with a four-year delay because the non-movant could not show prejudice
Pepsico, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.
315 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 659 times
Holding that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence of market power where the defendant had only a 64 percent market share
State Teachers Retirement Bd. v. Fluor Corp.
654 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 687 times
Holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend, where allowing the amendment, although causing delay, would not unduly prejudice the defendants as the amendment did not come on the eve of trial and would not result in new problems of proof
Ansam Associates, Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd.
760 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 304 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff already had amended once, discovery period had concluded and defendant had filed motion for summary judgment
Curtis Circulation Co. v. Anderson News, L.L.C.
568 U.S. 1087 (2013) Cited 23 times
No. 12–446. 2013-01-7 CURTIS CIRCULATION COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. ANDERSON NEWS, L.L.C., et al. Case below, 680 F.3d 162. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
In re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation
587 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 88 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint alleging manipulation of commodities prices must always satisfy the heightened standard of Rule 9(b) because “market manipulation is inherently deceptive”

In Re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Silver Futures and Options Trading Litigation

21 Cited authorities

Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"

Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

Holding that defendants' “varied” actions during the initial stages of the alleged conspiracy did not render the existence of a conspiracy implausible

Holding that a grant of amendment was proper even with a four-year delay because the non-movant could not show prejudice

Holding that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence of market power where the defendant had only a 64 percent market share

Holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend, where allowing the amendment, although causing delay, would not unduly prejudice the defendants as the amendment did not come on the eve of trial and would not result in new problems of proof

Holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend where plaintiff already had amended once, discovery period had concluded and defendant had filed motion for summary judgment

Holding that a complaint alleging manipulation of commodities prices must always satisfy the heightened standard of Rule 9(b) because “market manipulation is inherently deceptive”