Antitrust complaint post Twombly more than scintilla less than preponderance:
Plaintiffs need merely to allege direct evidence of an antitrust conspiracy, such as parallel conduct or behavior by defendants and allege facts that suggest such conduct or behavior does not result from chance, coincidence or independent responses to common stimuli.
Post Twombly Antitrust Cases:
West Penn Allegheny Health Systems Inc. v. UPMC, Highmark Inc., 627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010).
Third Circuit reversed a district court’s determination that the complexity of the plaintiff’s antitrust case required a heightened, plausibility-plus pleading standard.
“It is inappropriate to apply Twombly’s plausibility standard with extra bite in antitrust or other complex cases.”
In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2010):
Seventh Circuit refused to push Twombly’s plausibility standard from a “non-negligible probability” threshold to a “preponderance of the evidence” requirement and found the complaint sufficiently pled a plausible antitrust conspiracy to fix prices.