Horizontal Restraint Claims Sample Clauses

Horizontal Restraint Claims. In its second amended complaint, PSKS alleged, for the first time, that Xxxxxx had engaged in horizontal price fixing activities which were illegal per se. PSKS’s horizontal restraint claims for per se analysis were summarized as arguments relying on the theories which were called“dual distribution system”and“hub and spoke conspiracy”. Neither of them was accepted by the district court under the mandate rule, which prevented litigation of waived issues on remand because they had never been raised in the lower court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision stating that the district court rightly dismissed the PSKS’s horizontal restraint claim as barred by the mandate rule. Emphasizing that the Supreme Court in Xxxxxx did not specifically allow PSKS to re-plead allegations it had previously abandoned, the district court on remand rejected PSKS’s argument that the mandate rule did not apply in the case.225）Moreover, the district court analogized the case on remand to the district court decision on remand in Sylvania,226）in which the plaintiff was not allowed to plead horizontal allegations after the Supreme Court overruled per se illegality against vertical non-price restraints, and remanded the case to be tried under the rule of reason.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Horizontal Restraint Claims. Conclusions Mar. 2012 THE END OF THE LEEGIN SAGA AND THE BEGINNING OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RULE OF REASON IN RPM CASES Introduction Since the groundbreaking decision of the Supreme Court in Leegin,１）Resale Price Maintenance “( RPM”) has been a controversial issue not only in courts but also in Congress. It is true that Leegin is marked an epoch in U.S. antitrust law when it overruled the longstanding per se rule against RPM established by Dr. Miles２）and instead declared the application of the rule of reason. However, although Xxxxxx mentioned some factors which could lead RPM to illegality under the rule of reason, it is also true that Xxxxxx did not answer‘how’and‘on what standard’the lower courts should decide in each RPM case. Explicitly, the Leegin Court stated that“[i]f the rule of reason were to apply to vertical price restraints, courts would have to be diligent in eliminating their anticompetitive uses from the market.”３） The court continued further“[a]s courts gain experience considering the effects of these restraints by applying the rule of reason over the course of decisions, they can establish the litigation structure to ensure the rule operates to eliminate anticompetitive restraints from the market and to provide more guidance to businesses.”４）To put it simply, the Leegin Court expected lower courts to devise workable standards for RPM through discussion in the courtroom. Following the remand decisions by the lower courts in 2009 and 2010, the lengthy antitrust litigation which had lasted since 2003 came to an end on February 22, 2011.５）In this paper, following the quick review of the Leegin decision (Chapter I), post-Leegin movement in executive, judicial and legislative branches of federal government was summarized (Chapter II), in addition to the analysis of the remand decisions of Xxxxxx (Chapter III). Ⅰ．Leegin
Sample 1

Related to Horizontal Restraint Claims

  • Governmental Restrictions If the Contractor believes that any governmental restrictions have been imposed that require alteration of the material, quality, workmanship or performance of the products offered under the Contract, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Customer in writing, indicating the specific restriction. The Customer reserves the right and the complete discretion to accept any such alteration or to cancel the Contract at no further expense to the Customer.

  • Attachment; Levy; Restraint on Business (a) (i) The service of process seeking to attach, by trustee or similar process, any funds of Borrower or of any entity under the control of Borrower (including a Subsidiary), or (ii) a notice of lien or levy is filed against any of Borrower’s assets by any Governmental Authority, and the same under subclauses (i) and (ii) hereof are not, within ten (10) days after the occurrence thereof, discharged or stayed (whether through the posting of a bond or otherwise); provided, however, no Credit Extensions shall be made during any ten (10) day cure period; or

  • Reasonableness of Restrictive Covenants Executive acknowledges that the covenants contained in the preceding subsections of this Section 8 are reasonable in the scope of the activities restricted, the geographic area covered by the restrictions, and the duration of the restrictions, and that such covenants are reasonably necessary to protect the Company's legitimate interests in its Confidential Information and in its relationships with its employees, customers and suppliers. Executive further acknowledges such covenants are essential elements of this Agreement and that, but for such covenants, the Company would not have entered into this Agreement.

  • Additional Restrictions In addition to any other restrictions on transfer contained in this Agreement, in no event may any Transfer of a Partnership Interest by any Partner or any redemption pursuant to Section 8.6 be made without the express consent of the General Partner, in its sole and absolute discretion, (i) to any person or entity who lacks the legal right, power or capacity to own a Partnership Interest; (ii) in violation of applicable law; (iii) of any component portion of a Partnership Interest, such as the Capital Account, or rights to distributions, separate and apart from all other components of a Partnership Interest; (iv) if in the opinion of the General Partner based on the advice of legal counsel, if appropriate, such Transfer would cause a termination of the Partnership for Federal or state income tax purposes (except as a result of a redemption of all Partnership Units held by all Limited Partners); (v) if in the opinion of the General Partner based on the advice of legal counsel, if appropriate, such Transfer would cause the Partnership to cease to be classified as a partnership for Federal income tax purposes (except as a result of a redemption of all Partnership Units held by all Limited Partners); (vi) if such Transfer requires the registration of such Partnership Interest pursuant to any applicable federal or state securities laws; (vii) if such Transfer would cause the Partnership to become a “publicly traded partnership,” as such term is defined in Section 7704(b) of the Code (provided that this clause (vii) shall not be the basis for limiting or restricting in any manner the exercise of the Redemption Right under Section 8.6 unless, and only to the extent that, outside tax counsel advises the General Partner that, in the absence of such limitation or restriction, there is a significant risk that the Partnership will be treated as a “publicly traded partnership” and, by reason thereof, taxable as a corporation); (viii) if such Transfer would cause the General Partner to own 10% or more of the ownership interests of any tenant of a property held by the Partnership within the meaning of Section 856(d)(2)(B) of the Code; (ix) if such Transfer would result in the General Partner being “closely held” within the meaning of Section 856(h) of the Code; or (x) if in the opinion the General Partner based on the advice of legal counsel, if appropriate, such Transfer would adversely affect the ability of the General Partner to continue to qualify as a REIT or subject the General Partner to any additional taxes under Section 857 or Section 4981 of the Code.

  • REASONABLE RESTRAINT It is agreed by the parties hereto that the foregoing covenants in this Section 13 impose a reasonable restraint on the STOCKHOLDERS in light of the activities and business of URSI (including the subsidiaries thereof) on the date of the execution of this Agreement and the current plans of URSI; but it is also the intent of URSI and the STOCKHOLDERS that such covenants be construed and enforced in accordance with the changing activities and business of URSI (including the subsidiaries thereof) throughout the term of this covenant. It is further agreed by the parties hereto that, in the event that any STOCKHOLDER who has entered into an Employment Agreement shall thereafter cease to be employed thereunder, and such STOCKHOLDER shall enter into a business or pursue other activities not in competition with URSI and/or any subsidiary thereof, or similar activities or business in locations the operation of which, under such circumstances, does not violate clause (i) of this Section 13, and in any event such new business, activities or location are not in violation of this Section 13 or of such STOCKHOLDER's obligations under this Section 13, if any, such STOCKHOLDER shall not be chargeable with a violation of this Section 13 if URSI and/or any subsidiary thereof shall thereafter enter the same, similar or a competitive (i) business, (ii) course of activities or (iii) location, as applicable.

  • Union Activities Restrictions If the Contract Amount is over $50,000, this section is applicable. Contractor agrees that no JBE funds received under this Agreement will be used to assist, promote or deter union organizing during the Term. If Contractor incurs costs, or makes expenditures to assist, promote or deter union organizing, Contractor will maintain records sufficient to show that no JBE funds were used for those expenditures. Contractor will provide those records to the Attorney General upon request.

  • General Restrictions The registered Holder of this Purchase Warrant agrees by his, her or its acceptance hereof, that such Holder will not: (a) sell, transfer, assign, pledge or hypothecate this Purchase Warrant for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following the Effective Date to anyone other than: (i) Aegis Capital Corp. (“Aegis”) or an underwriter or a selected dealer participating in the Offering, or (ii) a bona fide officer or partner of Aegis or of any such underwriter or selected dealer, in each case in accordance with FINRA Conduct Rule 5110(g)(1), or (b) cause this Purchase Warrant or the securities issuable hereunder to be the subject of any hedging, short sale, derivative, put or call transaction that would result in the effective economic disposition of this Purchase Warrant or the securities hereunder, except as provided for in FINRA Rule 5110(g)(2). On and after 180 days after the Effective Date, transfers to others may be made subject to compliance with or exemptions from applicable securities laws. In order to make any permitted assignment, the Holder must deliver to the Company the assignment form attached hereto duly executed and completed, together with the Purchase Warrant and payment of all transfer taxes, if any, payable in connection therewith. The Company shall within five (5) Business Days transfer this Purchase Warrant on the books of the Company and shall execute and deliver a new Purchase Warrant or Purchase Warrants of like tenor to the appropriate assignee(s) expressly evidencing the right to purchase the aggregate number of Shares purchasable hereunder or such portion of such number as shall be contemplated by any such assignment.

  • Disclosure Restrictions If necessary for the proper management and administration of the Business Associate or to carry out legal responsibilities of the Business Associate. PHI may only be disclosed to another person/entity for such purposes if:

  • Reasonable Restrictions The Parties acknowledge that the foregoing restrictions, as well as the duration and the territorial scope thereof as set forth in this ARTICLE IV, are under all of the circumstances reasonable and necessary for the protection of the Company and its business.

  • License Restrictions You shall not:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.