In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs could not \circumvent the restrictions on antitrust claims under Arkansas ... law by reframing those claims as unjust enrichment actions\
• recognizing that “a number of cases ... stand for th[e] general proposition” that indirect purchasers “may not circumvent the restrictions on antitrust claims under [certain states] by reframing those claims as unjust enrichment actions”
• noting that even complex consolidated antitrust litigation does not require “elaborate fact pleading”
• following Booe’s articulation of an unjust enrichment claim in lieu of Effler and recognizing that Booe “did not ... require that a benefit be direct to state an unjust enrichment claim”
• “Contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Cardizem court did not hold that indirect purchaser plaintiffs who lacked standing under a state antitrust statute could repackage that claim as an unjust enrichment claim.”
• “Contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Cardizem court did not hold that indirect purchaser plaintiffs who lacked standing under a state antitrust statute could repackage that claim as an unjust enrichment claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).