<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Antitrust</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/antitrust/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>No Antitrust Claims for Service Station Owners&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/17/no-antitrust-claims-for-service-station-owners/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/17/no-antitrust-claims-for-service-station-owners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Claude M. Hilton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69601</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case from Alexandria U.S. District Court, defendant lessors of gasoline dealerships to plaintiff service stations win summary judgment on plaintiffs’ antitrust claims as well as their claims for 1) wrongful termination of dealership, 2) violation of the Virginia Petroleum Products Franchise Act through the establishment of “fee/commission agent operators” at stations within 1.5 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/17/no-antitrust-claims-for-service-station-owners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brokers Sued Over MLS Operation&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/brokers-sued-over-mls-operation/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/brokers-sued-over-mls-operation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/brokers-sued-over-mls-operation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit says plaintiff buyers of real estate brokerage services in South Carolina have stated an antitrust claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, with allegations that defendant brokerages that serve as board members of the local multiple listing service conspired to unfairly restrain market competition. The two putative class actions allege [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/brokers-sued-over-mls-operation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DuPont Win in Monopolization Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/dupont-win-in-monopolization-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/dupont-win-in-monopolization-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/dupont-win-in-monopolization-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this lengthy litigation between DuPont and Kolon Industries over trade secrets and confidential information concerning para-aramid fiber, a Richmond U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to DuPont on Kolon’s antitrust claim alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization. The 4th Circuit decided Kolon adequately pleaded antitrust claims of monopolization and attempted monopolization and remanded the matter [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/17/dupont-win-in-monopolization-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foreign Bribery Suit States Virginia Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/14/foreign-bribery-suit-states-virginia-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/14/foreign-bribery-suit-states-virginia-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/14/foreign-bribery-suit-states-virginia-claims/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this antitrust suit alleging defendants bribed foreign government officials to ensure the continuing sale in those countries of a fuel additive made by defendants, a Richmond U.S. District Court says plaintiff may also pursue Virginia state law antitrust and business conspiracy claims. Defendants first challenge count II, which alleges unlawful commercial bribery in violation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/09/14/foreign-bribery-suit-states-virginia-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust Claims Well-Pled, Dismissal Reversed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/03/16/antitrust-claims-well-pled-dismissal-reversed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/03/16/antitrust-claims-well-pled-dismissal-reversed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James A. Wynn Jr.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=60903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Saying “this case is no Twombly,” the 4th Circuit reverses a district court’s dismissal of a company’s antitrust counterclaim against DuPont, which dominates the U.S. market for para-aramid fibers used in body armor, and rejects the district court view that the company did not adequately plead the relevant geographic market for the antitrust claim. Under [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2011/03/16/antitrust-claims-well-pled-dismissal-reversed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
