Can treble damages apply to Antitrust "Collusion upon

Collusion" over Reserve Ban evidence that is exposed

and proved before Judge Garaufis and again before
Judges Winter Jacobs and Leval?

Says Mahlerlawyers.com:

Under federal antitrust law, persons and companies harmed by anticompetitive conduct may seek an
award of triple their damages, an injunction, and costs of the action (including attorney fees) against a
party that violates federal antitrust laws. For example, price fixing or an agreement among competitors
on the price they will charge is considered a per se illegal violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C.S. 1, that the government may prosecute as a felony. As a further deterrent to such activity,
those harmed by the violation may seek treble damages and an injunction.

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. 15, provides that any person who shall be injured in his
business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue for treble damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs of suit, including attorney fees. State and local governments are
considered persons permitted to sue under Section 4 for treble damages. Foreign states that do not
assert their own antitrust immunity also may sue but for single damages only.

The phrase injured in his business or property is interpreted broadly by the courts to include, for
example, the loss of money paid as an overcharge on a product with a price fixed by competitors.
However, some concrete business or property rather than a broad notion of a states economy must
be injured.

The statute in other respects is interpreted narrowly. The injury that must be shown by a person seeking
treble damages is what the courts have termed an antitrust injury or an injury related to what harms
rather than increases competition. For example, while a company may show injury to it as a result of a
merger between two of its competitors, the company may not be entitled to treble damages if, despite
the injury to the plaintiffs business and despite the merger being considered illegal under the antitrust
laws, the injury resulted from pro-competitive effects of the merger. In other words, even though the
company was harmed, there will be no antitrust recovery if the violation benefited competition in a
broader sense. Even if defendants conduct is per se illegal, as for example in fixing resale prices, a
plaintiff may not recover unless it can be shown that the injury resulted from the anticompetitive effects
of the violation of law.
Standing

The courts also have concluded in more recent antitrust cases that even if an antitrust injury is shown
by a person seeking treble damages, further requirements for standing must be met. There is no set test
for such standing. Rather, various factors are examined to determine if the person was targeted by the
antitrust violation and that the injury to that persons business or property was the type of injury that
the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. Generally, the more directly the person was targeted by
the antitrust violation, the more likely the courts are to grant that the person has standing to maintain
the action for treble damages.

Regarding the amount of damages to award, the courts require clear proof that the person bringing suit
was damaged. Once it is proved that damage occurred, the courts will be more expansive in considering
the amount of such damage based on the concept that amounts of antitrust damages are difficult to
prove and the defendant should not be relieved from the obligation to pay such damages due to
difficulty in proving the actual amount.

Mahlerlawyers.com
1043 Wyoming Avenue, First Floor
Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, 18704

Phone: (570) 718-1118

Fax: (570) 718-1119