Federal Jurisdiction Of Formula Price-Fixing Suit Appropriate - Companies
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
The claims of absent class members in an infant formula price-fixing lawsuit are part of the same "case or controversy" as the named plaintiffs' claims over which a Louisiana federal court had jurisdiction to dismiss, Abbott Labs and Bristol-Myers Squibb tell the U.S. Supreme Court.
You may also be interested in...
Infant formula price-fixing
Divided U.S. Supreme Court leaves intact the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Abbott Labs and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Louisiana residents who purchased the companies' infant formulas between January 1980 and December 1992 argued their lawsuit properly belonged in state court, rather than federal court. In June 1999, a New Orleans federal appeals court affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim under Louisiana antitrust law. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 27 (1"The Tan Sheet" March 20, p. 8). However, the justices split 4-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor not participating in the case
Infant Formula Price-Fixing Suit Jurisdiction Granted High Court Review
The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 29 agreed to decide whether a Louisiana state court lawsuit alleging infant formula price-fixing was properly removed to federal court, where it was eventually dismissed. The high court's decision in Free v. Abbott Laboratories is expected by July.
Supplement GMP Warning Letters Make Modest Debut In 2010
Finalization of a settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Rexall Sundown regarding unsupported cellulite treatment claims for the firm's Cellasene dietary supplement hinges upon approval of two related class action settlements pending in California and Florida, according to FTC