Search for: "In re: Vitamins Antitrust Litigation"
Results 1 - 20
of 32
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
The case is captioned In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 05-CV-0453 (E.D.N.Y), and is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 6:03 am
Class representatives and their counsel in the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation have won another initial round in their suit alleging that Chinese vitamin C manufacturers conspired to fix prices and to limit the output of vitamin C exported to the United States. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 10:29 am
On Tuesday Nov. 14, the Solicitor General filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, an international antitrust case that raises important questions about international comity and the interpretation of foreign law. [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 8:08 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in In re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 12:20 pm
On September 6, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied summary judgment for vitamin C manufacturers in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1738 (Decision (Vit C)). [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1738 (BMC)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 9:59 am
In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 2012 WL 251909 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 6:56 am
The manufacturers did not meet the burden of proof for the foreign sovereign compulsion defense, and their motion for summary judgment based upon that defense and the related doctrines of comity and act of state were denied.The case is In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 2012-1 Trade Cases ¶77,779; [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation / Direct Purchasers Class v. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 11:09 am
1, 2006); In re Intel Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 452 F. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 3:50 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s deference to China’s interpretation of its own law in a recent judgment (In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation; Sept. 20, 2016) has multiple implications. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:18 am
See In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 529 (3d Cir. 2004). [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 1:30 pm
(See Cohen Milstein’s Vitamins Antitrust Litigation section on its website and for example the US Department of Justice pamphlet ‘Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer’ for more.) [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 1:57 pm
” In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F. 3d 175, 189 (2016). [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:08 am
’” (quoting In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 209 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.D.C. 2002)). [2] See, e.g., Wachtel ex rel. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:08 am
’” (quoting In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 209 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.D.C. 2002)). [2] See, e.g., Wachtel ex rel. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 12:49 pm
Securities case.In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 183 Fed. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 6:00 am
’”) (quoting In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 209 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.D.C. 2002)). [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 6:00 am
’”) (quoting In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 209 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.D.C. 2002)). [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 1:11 pm
August 13, 2013) Among other points, the text observesIn re: Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 216 F.R.D. at 172 (corporation is obligated to produce one or more Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses who are thoroughly educated about the noticed deposition topics and facts known to the corporation or its counsel).As to the matter of facts, can the Court order that a party depose a fact witness INSTEAD OF a 30(b)(6) witness? [read post]
