Following his earlier commentary on the containerboard price collusion lawsuit filed by Artuso Pastry Foods Corp. against eight of North America’s largest packaging producers, Emmanuel Hurtado was once again featured in Packaging Dive, this time weighing in on the recent dismissal of Smurfit Westrock from the case.
The article “Smurfit Westrock removed from price fixing case, others file for dismissal” details how Smurfit Westrock and Graphic Packaging International were both dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning they could be brought back if new evidence emerges. Meanwhile, other defendants are seeking dismissal by arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint lacks enough specific facts to show an actual agreement to fix prices, which is a key requirement in antitrust law.
Emmanuel discusses how motions to dismiss in antitrust litigation hinge on whether a plaintiff’s allegations establish a legally sufficient claim even if some facts appear true. “In conducting this analysis, the court actually assumes that the alleged facts are true, and then it makes a purely legal determination regarding the adequacy of the plaintiff’s claim,” he explains. He notes, however, that “legal conclusions or conclusory statements such as ‘the defendant violated antitrust laws’ which might be contained in a complaint are not assumed to be true.”
Emmanuel further extrapolates on how plaintiffs in price fixing suits often face an uphill battle demonstrating collusion with enough factual specificity, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence or indirect purchase relationships.
