Private Enforcement of Antitrust
Show Less

Private Enforcement of Antitrust

Regulating Corporate Behaviour through Collective Claims in the EU and US

Arianna Andreangeli

Through the expert assessment of the US federal courts’ case on competition law, alongside that of domestic Europe, Arianna Andreangeli provides a fresh response to the issues surrounding collective litigation. The discussion is skillfully placed in the wider context of competition enforcement, whilst at the same time exploring both past and present trends. The book concludes that collective litigation of competition claims must strike a “fair balance” between respecting rules of due process and ensuring fuller access to justice.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3: “Managing” antitrust class actions under Rule 23(b)(3) FRCP: who “plays the pipe”? And who pays the piper?

Arianna Andreangeli


Chapter 2 examined the rationale of the requirements of “typicality” and of “superiority” of collective over individual litigation, provided by Rule 23(b)(3) with a view to granting class certification. It was emphasized that, just as for the conditions of “commonality” and of the “predominance” of common over individual questions of fact or of law, these conditions pursue objectives of fair and efficient adjudication and of full access to justice, especially for those claimants who would otherwise have no incentive or the material wherewithal to initiate individual proceedings, due to the low value of their claim. In this specific respect, it was illustrated that compliance with the condition of typicality seeks to ensure the “good management” of class litigation, to the benefit of its legitimacy, especially vis-à-vis the rights of “absent parties”, by imposing on the named plaintiff the obligation to hold no “interest in conflict” with those of the other class members. In addition, by requiring the named plaintiff to demonstrate that there is no “superior” alternative to class litigation, Rule 23(b)(3) ensures that collective proceedings represent the “most efficient” options for the litigants as well as the courts. Thereafter the chapter briefly examined the nature and function of the “notice requirement” established by Rule 23(b)(4) FRCP and emphasized that the same “legitimacy” rationale lies at the basis of the obligation imposed on the named plaintiff to give the “best notice practicable” to all class members, once certification has been granted.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.