By Melissa Maxman, Ronald Wick and Lara Kroop Delamarre (June 23, 2017, 12:28 PM EDT) -- For nearly a century, resale price maintenance was a per se antitrust violation. Then, on June 28, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legality of RPM should be determined on a case-by-case basis under the rule of reason.
Now that a decade has passed since the landmark ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc., this weeklong Expert Analysis series examines its impact.
Lara Kroop Delamarre Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a 96-year-old precedent regarding the standard under which resale price maintenance (RPM) should be analyzed under Section 1 of...
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!